Pozyx vs Sewio — quando cada plataforma UWB vence.

À primeira vista.

Pozyx: plataforma belga UWB; SDK de arquitetura e integração amigáveis para desenvolvedores; amplamente utilizado em pesquisa, análise esportiva e indústrias de médio porte; precisão de 10–30 cm de qualidade de produção.

Sewio: plataforma tcheca UWB; foco industrial em linha de produção com o RTLS Studio para modelagem de planta baixa; amplamente utilizado no setor automotivo e manufatureiro; Precisão 30 cm @ percentil 95.

Nenhum dos fornecedores revendedor bloqueia a instalação. Ambos publicam parâmetros de projeto RF de forma suficientemente aberta para suportar auditorias independentes. A decisão é adequada ao caso de uso, não à qualidade tecnológica.

Onde o Pozyx vence.

Integração centrada no desenvolvedor: SDK Python limpo e API REST; prototipagem rápida; Preferido para organizações que desenvolvem inteligência de localização personalizada sobre fluxos de posição.

Implantações de pesquisa e análise esportiva onde a flexibilidade importa mais do que o lançamento turnkey.

Indústria de médio porte, onde a TI interna absorve o trabalho de integração.

Onde Sewio vence.

Implantações industriais em linha de produção onde o RTLS Studio é o requisito para design, gerenciamento de âncoras e visualização ao vivo.

Grandes implantações de WIP automotiva e fluxo de processo, onde a maturidade da plataforma decide.

Equipes de compras que querem soluções empacotadas com comissionamento liderado por fornecedores, em vez de construção personalizada liderada por SDK.

O custo da comparação.

Ambas as âncoras cobram entre €200 e €300. Instalação entre €1.000 e €1.500 por âncora. O diferenciador de custo é o nível da plataforma — Pozyx está mais próximo de "plataforma bruta + SDK", Sewio é mais próximo de "plataforma + visualização + gerenciamento".

O custo total do programa raramente é decidido pelo preço do âncora; É decidido pela contagem de âncoras e pelo projeto de lei de instalação. Auditoria independente normalmente economiza de 30 a 50% em qualquer uma das plataformas em relação ao design de referência do fornecedor.

Para a conta da instalação, veja nosso Infraestrutura e serviço de instalação.

Score both platforms against the same six axes before a pilot: accuracy band under metal, software ownership model, integrator channel depth, time-to-first-value, MES/WMS integration path, and five-year TCO (not anchor list price). Public materials from both vendors claim roughly 10–30 cm production accuracy; the live floor decides which claim holds for your RF environment, mounting heights and multipath.

Pozyx (Ghent, Belgium) publishes a UWB + BLE hybrid stack with TDoA, optional IMU sensor-fusion, Accuracy-by-Density zoning, omlox Hub API alignment, MQTT/webhooks, ERP/WMS/MES middleware hooks, on-prem or isolated cloud, SSO/MFA/RBAC and ISO 27001:2022. Platform v3.0 messaging adds multi-floor maps, geofence groups and broader language/ops support. Anchors are IP67 with daisy-chaining; tags are configurable for update rate versus battery life. BLE tags (~5 m class) can cover lower-value zones without UWB density.

Sewio (Brno, Czechia) positions RTLS Studio as an all-in-one package: RTLS Manager, Sensmap visualisation, RTLS Monitor health, Sage Analytics (heatmaps, spaghetti diagrams, trajectories), plus RTLS Planner and RTLS Player via the portal. Trackables (Studio 3.1+) pair tags 1:1 with work orders or carts; Studio 3.3+ can push trackable events toward ERP. Open REST, WebSocket and UDP APIs are documented first-class integration surfaces. Partner-channel delivery is a deliberate go-to-market, especially visible in automotive and discrete manufacturing narratives.

Neither vendor reseller-locks the physical install. Demand an independent RF design review and a live-floor accuracy gate before CapEx. TRACIO stays vendor-neutral: we model both against the same constraint set and do not take hardware margin.

• In-house engineering wants an SDK-first / API-first platform and will own application logic on top of position streams.
• Hybrid coverage matters: precise UWB cells plus cheaper BLE tags where approximately 5 m presence is enough (Accuracy-by-Density style zoning).
• Sensor-fusion (UWB + IMU) is needed for smoother tracks through brief multipath dropouts or richer motion classification.
• Multi-technology hub thinking (UWB/BLE/GPS via omlox-style APIs) is explicitly on the roadmap.
• Research, sports analytics or mid-scale industrial pilots where flexibility beats a turnkey shop-floor software package.
• Security questionnaires emphasise ISO 27001-aligned cloud/on-prem options with SSO/MFA/RBAC out of the brochure.

• Automotive and discrete manufacturing WIP where RTLS Studio and Trackables map cleanly onto work orders and line zones.
• Procurement wants packaged design (Planner), live floor (Sensmap) and health (Monitor) without building a custom app layer first.
• Partner-channel delivery in DACH and Central Europe is the preferred commercial model.
• Sage Analytics artefacts (spaghetti, heatmaps, trajectory replay) are the primary ops deliverable for continuous improvement.
• ERP push of trackable lifecycle events is a day-one requirement rather than a custom middleware project.
• Commissioning teams prefer Studio-led workflows over assembling open-source-ish tooling around raw streams.

Anchor list price in the €200–€300 class is rarely the programme driver. Anchor count, PoE/cabling, mounting access, commissioning days and application integration dominate year-one spend. Vendor reference designs often over-density anchors; independent RF audit commonly trims 30–50% without losing the accuracy gate when the SLO is written per zone.

Trap 1: buying Studio or platform visualisation tiers operations never open. Trap 2: ignoring tag battery policy (update rate × motion duty cycle) until refresh year. Trap 3: assuming MES connectors are included when they are partner-scoped change orders. Trap 4: piloting in an empty bay then discovering multipath on the real line. Trap 5: locking CapEx before defining accuracy SLOs per zone (assembly vs aisle vs yard). Trap 6: comparing only hardware quotes while one side embeds application work and the other shifts it to your SI.

Model five-year TCO with infrastructure, install PMO, platform licences, tag refresh, integration and accuracy sustainment. For the install bill, see our infrastructure and install service. For a neutral shortlist workshop, book a scoping call — we will not steer you to a preferred SKU.

Run the same script on both: (1) RF survey with production metal present; (2) anchor plan reviewed by an independent party; (3) 95th-percentile error against surveyed control points for two weeks; (4) tag battery drain under the real update profile; (5) one MES/WMS event path end-to-end; (6) failure-mode test (anchor loss, network partition, DHCP issues). Whoever clears the gate cheaper at equal SLO wins — not whoever had the smoother demo.

Pozyx tends to reward teams comfortable with APIs, webhooks and building operational apps on clean position streams — with platform features catching up quickly for visualisation and automation. Sewio tends to reward teams that want Studio artefacts and partner playbooks for industrial WIP. Neither is “more UWB”; both live in the same accuracy physics band when engineered correctly.

Ask each for reference architectures into your specific MES, sample Trackables or webhook payloads, remote monitor capabilities, and a written stance on omlox or open hub APIs. Compare partner density in your country, not global marketing maps. Keep an independent installer eligible so you are not stuck if the channel changes.

If your constraint set is SDK flexibility and hybrid BLE economics, Pozyx often leads. If it is Studio-led automotive WIP packaging, Sewio often leads. If neither constraint dominates, run equal pilots. TRACIO will score the pilots against the same gate — we have no reseller incentive to tilt the result.