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

  1. Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) – % of successful transmissions.

  2. End-to-End Latency – Time for data to cross 5 hops.

  3. 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.