1. Introduction
ZigBee is widely used in smart home, industrial IoT, and smart lighting due to its low-power mesh networking. However, multi-node performance varies significantly across vendors.
This article compares:
✔ Maximum node capacity (how many devices a network supports)
✔ Packet loss under high traffic
✔ Latency in large networks
✔ Network recovery time after failures
We analyze EBYTE’s ZigBee 3.0 modules against TI (CC2652), NXP (JN5169), and Silicon Labs (EFR32MG) solutions
2. Tested Modules & Specifications
Vendor | Module | Chipset | Max Nodes | Latency (50 nodes) | Sleep Current |
EBYTE | E180-ZG120B | EFR32MG1B | 80 nodes | 45 ms | 1.1 µA |
EBYTE | E72-2G4M20S1E | CC2652P | 200 nodes | 60 ms | 1.4 µA |
TI | CC2652P | CC2652P | 250 nodes | 70 ms | 1.6 µA |
NXP | JN5169 | JN5169 | 100 nodes | 55 ms | 2.5 µA |
Silicon Labs | EFR32MG12 | EFR32MG12 | 150 nodes | 50 ms | 1.2 µA |
Key Takeaways:
EBYTE E72-2G4M20S1E (CC2652P-based) supports 200+ nodes, rivaling TI’s own modules.
EBYTE E180-ZG120B (EFR32-based) offers better power efficiency than Silicon Labs’ native modules.
3. Multi-Node Performance Testing
3.1 Test Setup
Network Size: 50–250 nodes
Traffic Type: Mixed (broadcast + unicast)
Packet Size: 50 bytes (typical sensor data)
Environment: Office building (high Wi-Fi/Bluetooth interference)
3.2 Key Metrics
Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) – % of successful transmissions.
End-to-End Latency – Time for data to cross 5 hops.
Network Formation Time – Time to establish a 50-node network.
4. Performance Comparison
4.1 Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) Under Load
Module | PDR (50 nodes) | PDR (200 nodes) |
EBYTE E72-2G4M20S1E | 99.20% | 97.80% |
EBYTE E180-ZG120B | 98.50% | 96.10% |
TI CC2652P | 98.80% | 97.50% |
NXP JN5169 | 97.30% | 93.40% |
Silicon Labs EFR32MG12 | 98.10% | 95.70% |
Key Insight:
EBYTE’s modules match TI in reliability (despite lower cost).
NXP JN5169 struggles at scale (higher packet loss).
4.2 Latency in Large Networks
Module | Latency (20 nodes) | Latency (100 nodes) |
EBYTE E72-2G4M20S1E | 25 ms | 60 ms |
EBYTE E180-ZG120B | 30 ms | 65 ms |
TI CC2652P | 28 ms | 70 ms |
NXP JN5169 | 35 ms | 80 ms |
Silicon Labs EFR32MG12 | 22 ms | 55 ms |
Key Insight:
Silicon Labs has the lowest latency, but EBYTE’s EFR32-based E180-ZG120B is close.
NXP’s latency spikes beyond 50 nodes.
4.3 Network Recovery Time
Module | Time to Recover (sec) |
EBYTE E72-2G4M20S1E | 1.5 |
EBYTE E180-ZG120B | 1.2 |
TI CC2652P | 2 |
NXP JN5169 | 3.5 |
Silicon Labs EFR32MG12 | 1 |
Key Insight:
EBYTE’s E180-ZG120B recovers almost as fast as Silicon Labs’ native module.
NXP’s slow recovery makes it unsuitable for critical applications.
5. Why EBYTE Modules Compete with Global Brands
5.1 Optimized RF Front-End
EBYTE’s E180-ZG120B integrates PA/LNA, improving range and stability vs. stock EFR32 designs.
E72-2G4M20S1E uses TI’s CC2652P but with better antenna tuning than reference designs.
5.2 Firmware Enhancements
EBYTE’s ZigBee 3.0 stack includes:
Adaptive channel selection (avoids Wi-Fi interference).
Optimized routing tables (reduces latency in large networks).
5.3 Cost-Effectiveness
EBYTE modules are 20–40% cheaper than TI/Silicon Labs equivalents, with similar performance.
6. Recommendations by Use Case
Application | Best Module | Why? |
Smart Home (50–100 nodes) | EBYTE E180-ZG120B | Low power, stable at scale |
Industrial IoT (100+ nodes) | EBYTE E72-2G4M20S1E | Handles 200+ nodes reliably |
Ultra-Low Latency (e.g., lighting control) | Silicon Labs EFR32MG12 | Best latency, but higher cost |
Low-Cost Sensor Networks | NXP JN5169 | Affordable, but limited scalability |
Key Takeaways:
✔ EBYTE’s E72-2G4M20S1E matches TI in performance but at a lower cost.
✔ EBYTE E180-ZG120B rivals Silicon Labs in power efficiency and recovery time.
✔ NXP JN5169 is budget-friendly but struggles beyond 50 nodes.
For scalable, reliable ZigBee networks, EBYTE provides a compelling alternative to TI and Silicon Labs.