Independent comparisons — UWB vs RFID, AGV vs AMR and more.

Every shortlist starts with constraints, not logos. Write the accuracy SLO, battery and tag economics, integration surface (MES, WMS or EHR), install window, and five-year TCO model before you open vendor datasheets. Lab centimetres are not floor centimetres; demand a live proof plan with production metal, Wi-Fi coexistence and real tag mounting.

Technology comparisons — UWB vs RFID, RFID vs barcode, BLE-AoA vs UWB, public vs private LoRaWAN, AGV vs AMR — decide the radio or mobility class. Vendor comparisons — Impinj vs Zebra, Quuppa vs Aruba, Sewio vs Ubisense, Pozyx vs Sewio — decide commercial fit inside a class. Mixing the two layers is how programmes buy the wrong stack and discover it at commissioning.

TRACIO does not resell hardware. Recommendations stay advisory: we score fit, model TCO traps, and design hybrid architectures when one radio cannot carry every use case. AGV and AMR guidance is locating and orchestration advisory only; we do not sell robots.

Identity at points versus continuous tracks. If value is inventory custody and bulk reads, start with RFID vs barcode and UWB vs RFID. If value is trajectories, geofences and process timing, start with UWB or BLE-AoA pages and only then open vendor shortlists.

Healthcare certainty. Room-level clinical certainty, sub-metre ward tracks and OR-grade precision are different SLOs — see BLE-AoA vs UWB healthcare before buying a hospital-wide single radio.

Networking reuse versus dedicated RTLS. If you already run Aruba or Cisco Wi-Fi, read Quuppa vs Aruba with an honest accuracy budget. Incremental AP features rarely replace purpose-built AoA or UWB when automation depends on sub-metre truth.

UWB mid-market versus enterprise. Pozyx vs Sewio and Sewio vs Ubisense separate SDK-led flexibility, Studio-led industrial packaging and Dimension4/SmartSpace enterprise process depth.

Mobility fleets. AGV vs AMR plus VDA 5050 questions belong in fleet RFPs even when locating is the entry point — mixed fleets fail on traffic and tasking, not only on navigation labels.

LPWAN. Public vs private LoRaWAN is coverage, control and ops maturity — not a chipset beauty contest between Semtech-based devices.

• Optimising unit hardware price instead of anchor or gateway count, install access and integration labour.
• Accepting vendor reference designs without independent RF audit.
• Piloting in empty space then discovering multipath on the live line or ward.
• Forcing a single-vendor RFP across complementary layers (for example Impinj silicon with Zebra mobiles).
• Buying platform visualisation tiers never used by operations.
• Ignoring tag battery policy, consumables and five-year refresh.
• Treating Wi-Fi location SKUs as RTLS without an acceptance test.
• Assuming VDA 5050 “support” equals interchangeable robots.

Use the individual comparison pages for decision criteria, when-A / when-B guidance and traps. Use the TCO model template to keep quotes comparable. Book a scoping call when you want a neutral design review before CapEx locks.

We do not take reseller margin on the outcome of a comparison. Vendor pages and head-to-heads are written from public product materials, deployment patterns we see in programmes, and constraint-based scoring. No fabricated client endorsements. Where a vendor wins, we say so; where it does not, we say so. If your constraint set changes, the winner can change — that is the point of a living shortlist, not a brochure duel.

Each comparison links into deeper vendor assessments when a brand enters the shortlist. Comparisons decide the class and commercial altitude; vendor pages cover positioning, tech stack, fit, alternatives and procurement notes. Partners and integrators sit in a third layer — see partners for ecosystem framing without reseller theatre.

If you only have thirty minutes, read the decision criteria and TCO traps on the comparison that matches your constraint axis, then book a scoping call with your accuracy SLO written down. That is faster than collecting five demo environments that optimise for different jobs.

Accuracy under 30 cm indoors → UWB comparisons and Sewio/Pozyx/Ubisense pages. Sub-metre on BLE budgets → Quuppa versus Aruba and healthcare BLE-AoA. Item identity at volume → RFID versus barcode and Impinj versus Zebra. Wide-area sensors → public versus private LoRaWAN. Material movement fleets → AGV versus AMR with VDA 5050 questions. If two constraints conflict, you need a hybrid — that is a design problem, not a single-SKU purchase.

Revisit comparisons when the accuracy SLO, site count or integration surface changes. A Quuppa-versus-Aruba decision made for workplace analytics does not automatically transfer to a manufacturing cell. Update the constraint sheet first, then re-open the relevant page. Independence means we will tell you when last quarter’s winner no longer fits.