UWB RTLS consulting: is UWB right, which supplier, and is the design accurate?UWB quoted, but will it hit the accuracy you need?
An independent ultra-wideband (UWB) RTLS consultant for teams specifying, buying or rescuing a UWB locating system. We set accuracy per zone, choose the supplier with you and audit the anchor design before you sign. We don't sell hardware, so our advice stays independent.
Free 30-minute call with an adviser · written proposal with the price after · fixed-scope engagements from £3k.
When to bring in a UWB consultant
A UWB RTLS consultant turns a locating requirement into a design you can buy and accept. They set accuracy at the 95th percentile per zone, decide whether UWB is needed at all, choose TDoA or two-way ranging, run supplier selection, audit anchor geometry and synchronisation, and hold the supplier to acceptance tests under production load. TRACIO does this with no hardware or platform revenue.
When to get independent UWB advice:
- A quote with an anchor count nobody can challenge. You need a density rationale tied to zones and KPIs, not a uniform grid.
- An accuracy claim that is a single number. The accuracy depends on your site, and we confirm it in the survey.
- UWB, BLE-AoA or passive RFID? The accuracy depends on your site, and we confirm it in the survey.
- A pilot that drifted at go-live. That usually points to multipath, synchronisation or geometry, not “tuning”.
- UWB feeding a safety function, such as forklift-pedestrian collision avoidance, where false negatives and false alarms both cost.
Our UWB and RTLS cost guide shows where the money goes.
What we do
| Stage | Deliverable | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| 1 · Is UWB right? | Accuracy, latency and update-rate targets per zone, derived from the decision each zone supports; UWB vs BLE-AoA vs passive RFID vs hybrid | Stops you paying for centimetres a workflow never uses |
| 2 · Which supplier? | Requirements, shortlist, RFP pack, weighted scoring agreed before responses, reference gate, five-year TCO including batteries | Tag-to-anchor protocols are supplier-specific, so the choice is hard to reverse |
| 3 · Is the design defensible? | Anchor-design audit: predictive RF model, device count at 70/100/130% of supplier density, mount-point register, sync and network design | Installation, not hardware, is usually the biggest line |
| 4 · Pilot design & oversight | Written pass/fail criteria, ground-truth test method, multi-time-of-day measurement, go / no-go report | A supplier-led pilot is built to win. An independent one is built to find the edge cases |
| 5 · Acceptance | p95 accuracy per zone under production load, sync-health monitoring, as-built documentation | Accuracy at 06:00 in an empty bay is not accuracy at 14:00 on shift |
Engage one stage or all five. For anchor density rules and mounting detail, see our UWB anchor placement guide.
What a good UWB specification actually says
Accept on the 95th percentile, not the mean
A mean error hides the tail, and the tail is where a tag appears in the wrong bay or a safety zone fails to trigger. Specify p95 error per zone against surveyed ground-truth points, static and moving, with sample size and shift written down. Safety cells, asset-find halls and awkward brownfield corners should carry different numbers on the drawing.
Choose TDoA or two-way ranging on tag count and update rate
Two-way ranging (TWR) is simpler to deploy but uses airtime per ranging exchange, so it scales poorly with large, fast-updating tag populations. With time difference of arrival (TDoA), the tag only transmits and synchronised anchors timestamp arrival. It scales further but depends on nanosecond-level synchronisation across anchors.
Treat synchronisation as part of the design
TDoA sync is usually distributed over a wired backbone or by dedicated wireless sync. Drift shows up as “random inaccuracy”, not as an error, so the network design needs a timing tolerance, a dedicated VLAN under IEC 62443 zoning, and sync-health monitoring after go-live.
Engineer geometry and first path before count
Metal racking creates conditions where a reflection is stronger than the direct path. Anchor placement should protect first-path visibility along the aisles where things move, and be re-checked after racking or mezzanine changes. “One anchor per so many square metres” is a starting point for a survey, not a design.
Budget the battery and the ecosystem
High-update-rate tags last weeks to months; lower-rate asset tags a year or two. At tens of thousands of assets, tag cost and battery logistics dominate TCO more than the radio brand. And because the tag-to-anchor protocol is largely supplier-specific despite IEEE 802.15.4z and FiRa work, exit terms and open event APIs belong in the contract.
UWB suppliers we assess
We assess UWB suppliers against your requirements and hold no preferred list. Independent reviews on this site include Ubisense, Sewio (HID Global), Pozyx and Litum, with head-to-head comparisons of Sewio vs Ubisense and Pozyx vs Sewio. For how we score, see how we assess suppliers.
What UWB costs, and what we charge
Hardware prices come from supplier quotes in the survey. Source: our installation pricing.
| Entry point | Typical duration | Indicative fee |
|---|---|---|
| Discovery & scoping stage (is UWB right?) | typically 1 to 5 days on site | £3k to £30k |
| Supplier selection & RFP support | typically 3 to 6 weeks | £3k to £30k |
| Anchor-design audit | 2-4 weeks per site | £3k to £30k per project |
| Pilot design & oversight | with timings agreed per site | £3k to £30k |
Design audits are less needed for small UWB deployments under 10 anchors. Fees exclude hardware, licences and travel. See infrastructure, installation & PMO and pricing.
What we won’t sell you
- We don't sell hardware or take commissions from vendors.
- We do not quote a single site-wide accuracy figure the physics will not deliver.
- We do not recommend UWB where BLE zone-level visibility or passive RFID read points would do the job for less. See UWB vs RFID.
Frequently asked questions
What does a UWB RTLS consultant do?
They decide with you whether UWB is the right locating technology at all, then which supplier, and whether the proposed design is defensible. That means accuracy targets per zone at the 95th percentile, a TDoA or two-way ranging decision, an anchor-design audit, supplier selection with five-year TCO, and pilot and acceptance criteria. An independent consultant does this with no revenue from the hardware specified.
How accurate is UWB RTLS in practice?
UWB is usually the most precise of these options. The accuracy you get depends on your site, and we confirm it in the survey. Real accuracy depends on anchor geometry and density, synchronisation, and the RF environment on a busy shift, so we write accuracy per zone and validate it under production load rather than accepting a brochure figure or a mean from an empty floor.
Should we use TDoA or two-way ranging?
It depends on tag count, update rate and battery budget. Two-way ranging is simpler to deploy but airtime scales poorly with large tag populations. TDoA scales better because the tag only transmits, but it needs nanosecond-level synchronisation between anchors, so sync design and sync-health monitoring become part of the specification.
Can you review a supplier’s UWB anchor design before we sign?
Yes. A design audit includes an on-site walkthrough, predictive RF modelling, device-count justification with KPI sensitivity at 70%, 100% and 130% of the supplier’s density, a mount-point register and an acceptance test plan. It typically takes two to four weeks per site and is priced at £3k to £30k per project. It is less needed for small deployments under 10 anchors.
Are UWB systems interoperable across suppliers?
Mostly not in practice. IEEE 802.15.4z and FiRa Consortium work exist, but the tag-to-anchor protocol is largely supplier-specific, so you are effectively committing to one supplier’s tag and anchor ecosystem per deployment. That makes selection, open event APIs, data export and exit terms more important, and we write them into the RFP.
When is UWB the wrong answer?
When the decision only needs zone or room level, BLE is usually cheaper and tags last longer. When it only needs proof that an item passed a door, passive RFID is far cheaper per item. And at tens of thousands of assets, tag cost and battery logistics can outweigh the accuracy benefit. We may recommend UWB only in the zones that need it.
Do you sell or resell hardware?
No. You buy hardware and licences direct from the supplier, on your own contract; we don't resell them. Pilot equipment can be rented for evaluation, never sold.
Last updated: 5 October 2026