2014 IEEE Innovative Smart Grid Technologies - Asia (ISGT ASIA)

A Comparison of the Popular Home Automation

Technologies

Chathura Withanage*
Rahul Ashok
Chau Yuen
Kevin Otto
Engineering Product Development Pillar
Singapore University of Technology and Design
Singapore
*
chathura@sutd.edu.sg

Abstract—Home automation systems represent the front-end of In the current home automation market, there are several
smart grids, where the energy monitoring and control popular technologies [6-7] competing for market share. This
operations are enabled through smart devices installed in includes X10[8], Z-Wave [6, 9], ZigBee [6], INSTEON [6,
households and residential buildings. There are many home 10], and EnOcean [11]. The result has been a plethora of
automation technologies available in the market, and the users choices to the potential consumer. However, any guidelines or
are left to select their choice of best technology. Proper comparisons are not available to support the user’s decision
guidelines to their selection currently remain low. Therefore, in making. Users are left to choose technologies they find
this paper, a comparison of popular home automation available or know about. Information to help users make cost
technologies is presented from user perspective to fill this void in
and performance based decisions are not available. Therefore,
the research literature, and to empower the users with more
using a testing facility, these technologies are evaluated to
details based on the current home automation market. X10, Z-
Wave, ZigBee, INSTEON, and EnOcean are the home provide indices as selection guidelines. We consider an
automation technologies compared in this paper. Two indices affordability index and a multi-factor performance index to
are developed as the outcome of this paper to represent the compare these technologies.
performance and affordability of these technologies, as a The Future Living Laboratory of Singapore University of
guideline to the potential users. We find these technologies fit Technology and Design is a test bed facility used to evaluate
out a tradeoff of higher performance and price (Z-Wave) down the operational requirements and performances of these home
to lower performance and price (X10). With this understanding,
automation systems, and develop new systems and
appropriate choices can be made.
applications. The Future Living Laboratory network
Index Terms--home automation; smart homes; sensor systems. architecture is shown in Fig. 1. Z-Wave and INSTEON
devices [9-10] are sharing the same network and there is a
I. INTRODUCTION separate network for the ZigBee devices [4] as shown in Fig.
1.
In smart homes, automation systems are used to monitor
and control the energy usage of electrical appliances and a) ZigBee Network
equipment [1], and can be considered as the front-end of a
smart grid. These systems can be connected to utility meters to
form a smart grid or work as a standalone system. In addition
to energy monitoring and control devices [2], there are many
other devices that can be connected to the home automation
systems such as motion sensors, temperature sensors, etc. to
provide security, fire protection and various other benefits to
the users [3].
The smart home market is growing rapidly with the entry
of more players in consumer electronics such as Samsung and
LG [4], as well as IT companies such as Google to the already
blooming market. These companies have announced products
and services that could rapidly grow the smart home industry.

978-1-4799-1300-8/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE 600

 2014 IEEE Innovative Smart Grid Technologies - Asia (ISGT ASIA)
b) Z-Wave and INSTEON Network
Figure 1. Network architecture of the Future Living Laboratory
This paper consists of five sections. In Section II, brief
introductions are given about the functionality of these
technologies. Evaluation is done in Section III and indices are
introduced in Section IV. The paper ends with conclusions and
future works given in Section V.
II. POPULAR HOME AUTOMATION TECHNOLOGIES
A. Z-Wave
Z-Wave [9, 16-17] is the most widely used technology in
home automation systems, and by far the most widely
accepted technology [15]. It offers good network reliability
and stability (see Fig. 2a for a Z-Wave motion sensor). Z-
Wave is one of the oldest available home automation
protocols. The best feature of Z-Wave devices is their cross-
compatibility among different branded systems [9]. Each Z-
Wave device has a unique network ID and each network has a
unique identification thus making the system secure [16]. Z-
Wave is a mesh protocol, and thus the devices can talk to one
another.
Z-Wave operating frequency varies with the region; the
frequency is 908.42 MHz in the US and 868.42 MHz in
Europe [9, 15]. Also, the signal range offered by Z-Wave is
high, in the range of 30 meters, and it is possible to extend the
range of devices by using them as repeaters. As the signal
passes from one device to another, it gains a range of another
30 meters. This process is called hopping, and it can be done
to extend the signal using a maximum of 4 devices. However,
beyond 4 devices, the Z-Wave protocol terminates the signal
(Hop Kill) [9, 17].
B. Zigbee
ZigBee is an IEEE 802.15 standard used in home
automation technology and very closely resembles Bluetooth
and Wi-Fi standards [18-19]. Zigbee devices are attractive
largely because of its low power consumption and open
specifications which makes the devices ideal for battery
operated uses.
Zigbee, like Z-Wave is a mesh protocol, where devices can
talk to one another, and can act as repeaters [18]. Even though
with so many advantages, the technology has not gained a
large market share, mainly because of the incompatibility of
devices among many different vendors. However, Zigbee
proves useful in research, with many universities developing
devices such as TelosB, from University of California
Berkeley (see Fig. 2b) that can be used as part of a wireless
601
sensor network to monitor environmental conditions [12].
TelosB motes are relatively inexpensive, can be used as a
transmitter and a receiver and useful for inexpensive custom
sensors.
a) b)
Figure 2. Z-Wave motion detector and a ZigBee TelosB mote used in the
Future Living Lab
C. X10
X10 [7, 20-21] is one of the oldest available home
automation standards. The technology is still in the market
despite tough competition from newer standards. There are
reportedly 10 million X10 devices in US alone.
An advantage of X10 is that it can use either wired power
line or wireless radio communication methods. However, the
transmission of messages occur one command at a time. This
is one of the biggest disadvantages of X10 because multiple,
concurrent X10 signals may lead to decoding issues resulting
lost commands [8]. Nevertheless, X10 is inexpensive and
many devices are available.
D. INSTEON
INSTEON [10] is designed to integrate power line system
with wireless system, and was developed to replace the X10
standard. It is designed such that it enables devices, whether
sensors or switches to be used together using power line
and/or radio frequency. Other than X10, this is the only
technology that communicates via both wireless and
powerline technologies [22].
Another advantage of INSTEON [10] is its partial
compatibility with X10 devices. INSTEON and X10
commands are not similar, but the INSTEON driver chipset
has the capability of responding to X10 messages [10] and
therefore can communicate with X10 devices. The
transmission of data occurs at 1131.65 KHz for powerline
devices and 904 MHz for wireless devices [10, 22]. In an
attempt to make interoperable INSTEON devices across
different platforms, an alliance has been formed (similar to Z-
Wave alliance) which includes many INSTEON product
development organizations and some Fortune 500 companies
[10].
E. EnOcean
EnOcean [11] is one of the newest technologies in home
automation, mainly aimed at zero energy consumption
through energy harvesting. The unique beneficial feature of
EnOcean devices is their ability to work battery-less and still
having the ability to communicate wirelessly. This is
achieved by means of micro energy converters along with
ultra-low power electronics [22-24].
Early designs of EnOcean devices used piezo electric
generators but were later replaced by electromagnetic energy
sources [23]. Because the devices are self-powered, the
maintenance is minimal. Radio interference is also minimal
 2014 IEEE Innovative Smart Grid Technologies - Asia (ISGT ASIA)

TABLE I. THE COMPARISON AND RATINGS

Z-Wave ZigBee X10 INSTEON EnOcean

Released (Year) 2001 2004 1975 2005 2008
Pico
Inventor ZenSys Corp. ZigBee Alliance Smartlabs Inc. EnOcean GmbH
Electronics
Standardization Proprietary IEEE 802.15.4 Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary
Industrial
Automation,
Industrial
Properties

Primary Research, Home Home Home

Home Automation Automation, Home
Markets Automation, Automation Automation
Automation
Telecommunications,
Healthcare
Communication
RF RF RF, Power Line RF, Power Line RF
Mode
System-On-Chip
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Solution
Encryption 128-bit AES 128-bit AES No No ARC4/AES
Energy Usage High (1) Medium (2) High (1) High (1) Nil (3)
Data Rate ~ 40 kbps (3) >20 kbps (3) 20-200 bps (1) ~ 2000 bps (1) 125 kbps (3)
Two-way
Yes (3) Yes (3) No (0) Yes (3) Yes (3)
Communication
Performance Factors

Transmission
~120m (3) ~60m (2) ~30m(2) ~120m (3) > 20m (2)
Range
Inter-brand
High (3) Medium (2) Low (1) Medium (2) Medium (2)
Operability
Number of
>600 (3) <500 (2) >500 (3) <500 (2) >600 (3)
Certified Devices
Ability to work as
Yes (3) Yes (3) No (0) Yes (3) No (0)
Repeaters
Ease of
Easy (3) Medium (2) Difficult (1) Easy (3) Medium (2)
Installation
Performance Index 0.916 0.792 0.375 0.75 0.75
Affordability Index 0.34 0.212 1.00 0.362 0.46

as it operates in the less crowded 315 MHz band [11].
According to EnOcean Alliance [11], their sensors have been
installed in over 250,000 buildings, far less than X10 but
nonetheless growing and not inconsequential.
III. THE EVALUATION
We compared these standards on several criteria related to
performance and affordability (see TABLE I). Several of the
comparisons are based on the tests conducted at the Future
Living Laboratory in Singapore University of Technology
and Design (SUTD) as well as reviews from technology
websites and research papers.
The popular home automation websites and previous
publications [13-15] were used to help identify the key
performance factors listed. Each performance factor was
given rating on a 0-3 scale as indicated in TABLE I. The
performance factors were then combined into an overall
performance index. In addition, an affordability index was
obtained using the retail prices of the home automation
devices at various locations globally. More details about the
performance factors, prices, performance index and
affordability index are given in the following subsections.
Affordability index is calculated based on the cost of a
system consisting of four smart switches, a gateway, two
occupancy sensors and a temperature sensor.
A. Energy Usage
One performance factor is the energy use of the devices.
EnOcean is the unanimous winner in this category, and
therefore assigned a value of 3. It does not require any
batteries and is mainly aimed at energy harvesting. It does
this by making use of the minor changes in pressure, motion,
temperature and vibration to create electric power.
ZigBee is the next most efficient, with the devices
employing a sleep mode when not in operation thus
minimizing the energy usage. ZigBee is thus given a rating of
2. ZigBee is developing a new feature called Green Power
which can make the devices self-powered similar to
EnOcean. The other devices, namely Z-
Wave/INSTEON/X10, are not as good in terms of energy
usage. They are assigned ratings of 1 each.
B. Data Rate
A second performance factor is the data rate. ZigBee has a
maximum of 250 kbps using offset quadrature phase-shift
keying, and exceeds other technologies by a wide margin.

602
 2014 IEEE Innovative Smart Grid Technologies - Asia (ISGT ASIA)
However, the European version of ZigBee has a data rate of
around 20 kbps only [25].EnOcean has a data rate of
approximately 125 kbps. Z-Wave has a data rate up to 40
kbps. The data rate for X10 is much lower in the order of 20
to 200 bits/second thus confining the technology to ON/OFF
operations. Powerline data rate for INSTEON is
approximately 2000 bits/second. However, the wireless
communication occurs at more than 20 kbps.
Based on the above observations, ZigBee, EnOcean and
Z-Wave (all having data rate more than 20kbps) are given
ratings of 3 each. INSTEON and X10 are given ratings of 1
each.
C. Two-way Communication
Another important performance factor is the ability to
both send and receive data. X10 devices have no provision
for two way communication. Therefore, there is no
acknowledgement for the commands sent, and thus assigned
with 0 rating point.
However, Z-Wave, ZigBee, EnOcean and INSTEON
devices provide two-way communication and commands sent
are acknowledged; and thus assigned with rating points of 3
each.
D. Transmission Range
Another important performance factor is the range of
communication. INSTEON and Z-Wave outdid other
standards with 30 meters for a single hop. Further, each Z-
Wave/INSTEON device can act as an RF repeater and the
commands can route through up to 4 devices before the
protocol terminates the signal. This gives a maximum range
of up to 120 meters. They are assigned with a rating point of
3 each.
ZigBee has a transmission range of more than 10 meters.
It allows hopping and has the capability to send the signal up
to 6 nodes before the commands are lost. This allows for a
total of approximately 60 meters. EnOcean has a data range
of more than 20 meters. These two are given rating points of
2 each.
X10 is primarily a wired protocol, but there are wireless
devices available for 900MHz RF communication. These are
generally 30m transmitter/receivers. Based on the above
observation, X10 is assigned with a rating point of 2.
E. Miscallaneous Factors:
Other factors for performance index calculation include
ease of installation, ability to work as repeaters, inter-brand
operability and number of certified devices. Ease of
installation is one of the main factors as the ability to retrofit
can ease the burden on the users. Especially, users living in
rented or leased properties are greatly benefitted by the
wireless plug and play devices, which can be easily retrofitted
without touching the building interior or exterior. The factors
are assigned with values as given in TABLE I.
603
IV. PERFORMANCE AND AFFORDABILITY INDICES
A. Performance Index Calculation
There are many factors related to a technology’s
performance. A single composite performance index is
sought on a 0-1 scale. A perfect scale is 1 and rated best
performing on all factors.
The performance of the technology was calculated based
on the rating points obtained from the previous section.
Σ
(1)
The maximum permissible rating point for each factor is
3. Since there are 8 factors, the denominator of equation (1)
becomes 24. The numerator is a summation of all the rating
points assigned to a technology as detailed in the previous
section. The calculated values are shown in TABLE I.
B. Affordability Index Calculation
A second composite index is sought based on
affordability. This index is calculated based on the cost
required to purchase a basic system (consisting of a
controller, four smart switches, two occupancy sensors and
one temperature sensor). Since installation costs are the same
for all technologies, labor costs are not included.
X10 has been around for quite a long time, and therefore
devices running on X10 technology are available for as low
as $25. X10 controllers are available for $30 and sensors are
available for prices ranging from $30 to $50. Therefore, the
total cost of a basic system would be approximately $170.
Z-Wave smart plugs cost around $40, and their controllers
are available for $200. Sensors are available from $50. The
total cost would thus be around $500.
INSTEON hubs/controllers are available in the market for
approximately 120$, and smart plugs are available for $50.
The prices of sensors start at $35. This makes the total cost
hover at around $470.
EnOcean USB gateways are available for $30 and push
button switches are available for $35. Motion sensors are
slightly expensive at around $80, while the temperature
sensor can be bought for $30. The total cost would be
approximately $370.
ZigBee devices are slightly expensive compared to others.
Their controllers cost around 270$ and other devices are
available in the range $40 to $100. The total cost would be
around 800$. However, ZigBee TelosB motes for research
and development purposes are available at 60$.
The costs of the devices are approximate indicative values
and vary depending on the market, vendor and country.
The Affordability Index is calculated using the formula
shown below.
(2)
 2014 IEEE Innovative Smart Grid Technologies - Asia (ISGT ASIA)
The lowest total cost system is $170 for an X10 system.
The calculated affordability index values are listed in TABLE
I.
C. Performance-Affordability Tradeoff
Ideally, a technology with both high performance and
affordability index would be preferred. This would fall on the
top-right corner of the plot given in Figure 3. In reality, such
a technology doesn’t exist and instead a price-performance
tradeoff is necessary.
1
0.8
Performance Index
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Affordability Index
Figure 3. Performance Vs Affordability
X10 is low cost, but lower performance. Z-Wave is
expensive, but high performing. Z-Wave is better compared
to ZigBee based on overall price- performance and might be
preferred. However, ZigBee has a unique feature of being
very open, and so might be preferred solely on that basis.
V. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, a comparison of popular home automation
technologies is presented. Performance and affordability
factors of home automation systems were identified and rated
by the researchers of Future Living Laboratory.
Z-Wave is the leading technology in terms of
performance, and is widely accepted in the market despite
being slightly costly than ZigBee systems. The main
advantages of Z-Wave devices are flexibility and security.
Features like mesh network capabilities, upgradeable
firmware and remote device diagnostics make it interesting.
Furthermore, Z-Wave makes an attractive automation
standard for professionals and researchers who work on home
automation technologies, given controllers with open APIs. If
cost is not a great concern, Z-Wave is the clear winner.
ZigBee has been a preferred technology by many, mainly
because of the fact that it is an open standard. In addition,
ZigBee offers high data security and reliability, and strong
data encryption capabilities. But, the major disadvantage is its
noncompliance by different manufacturers. However, ZigBee
has the potential to prevail as the market expands. There are
many off the shelf ZigBee development kits available for
developing prototypes and so ZigBee is ideal for research
related activities.
INSTEON holds good for users who are migrating from
the old X10 standard, as it allows integration of both RF and
power line technologies for networking. INSTEON network
operate in a mesh fashion and can work as repeaters,
increasing the overall transmission range. The installation of
INSTEON devices is slightly easier and the devices are
highly responsive. However, its major disadvantages are
limited number of vendors and certified devices available.
EnOcean scored well in the energy usage category, with
the devices being self-powered. However, its reliability is
Z-Wave
low, and these devices neither work in a mesh network nor
ZigBee have the capability to work as repeaters. The technology is
X10 comparatively new and holds a promising future given the
INSTEON research activities underway to improve the system.X10 is the
cheapest among the considered, but the technology is
EnOcean
becoming obsolete. As costs come down on the new
technologies, the price advantage will dissipate.
As the home automation market expands, each of these
standards will undoubtedly maintain their market share.
0.8 1 Therefore, hybrid networks consisting of different standards
are a likely future scenario.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by a research grant sponsored
by the Energy Market Authority of Singapore, and from
support from the SUTD-MIT International Design Centre
(IDC) (idc.sutd.edu.sg). Any opinions, findings, or
recommendations are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.
REFERENCES
[1] W. H. E. Liu, and D. Pearson, "Consumer-centric smart grid," in
Proc. 2011 IEEE Power Engineering Society Innovative Smart Grid
Technologies (ISGT) , pp.1-6.
[2] S. Ahmad, "Smart metering and home automation solutions for the
next decade," in Proc. 2011 International Conference on Emerging
Trends in Networks and Computer Communications (ETNCC),
pp.200,204.
[3] F. Suba, C. Prehofer, and J. van Gurp, "Towards a Common Sensor
Network API: Practical Experiences," In Proc. 2008 SAINT
International Symposium on Applications and the Internet,
pp.185,188.
[4] "CES 2014: Samsung and LG showcase their vision of 'smart' homes
| NDTV Gadgets," http://gadgets.ndtv.com/others/news/ces-2014-
samsung-and-lg-showcase-their-vision-of-smart-homes-469844.
[5] "Google Nest Acquisition: How Nest might transform Google
advertising | BGR," http://bgr.com/2014/01/14/google-nest-
acquisition-privacy-advertising/.
[6] C. Gomez and J. Paradells, "Wireless home automation networks: A
survey of architectures and technologies," IEEE Communications
Magazine, vol.48(6,) pp.92-101, Jun. 2010.
[7] J. Walko, "Home Control," Computing & Control Engineering
Journal, vol.17(5), pp.16,19, Oct.-Nov. 2006.
[8] "X10 devices and standards," http://www.x10.com.
[9] "Z-Wave devices and standards," http://www.z-wavealliance.org/.
[10] "Insteon devices and standards," http://www.insteon.com/.
[11] "EnOcean devices and standards,"http://www.enocean-
alliance.org/en/home/.
604
 2014 IEEE Innovative Smart Grid Technologies - Asia (ISGT ASIA)

[12] "TelosB Datasheet," http://www.willow.co.uk/TelosB_Datasheet.pdf

[13] "Tom's hardware technical reviews," http://www.tomshardware.com/.
[14] "About networking protocols, standards and reviews,"
http://compnetworking.about.com/.
[15] "Home automation devices , reviews and case studies,"
http://www.vesternet.com/resources/feature-comparison.
[16] M. Knight, "Wireless security - How safe is Z-wave?" Computing &
Control Engineering Journal , vol.17(6), pp.18,23, Dec.-Jan. 2006.
[17] P. Amaro, R. Cortesao, J. Landeck, and P. Santos,"Implementing an
Advanced Meter Reading infrastructure using a Z-Wave compliant
Wireless Sensor Network," in Proc. 2011 3rd International Youth
Conference on Energetics (IYCE) , pp.1-6.
[18] Batista, N.C.; Melicio, R.; Matias, J.C.O.; Catalao, J.P.S., "ZigBee
wireless area network for home automation and energy management:
Field trials and installation approaches," Innovative Smart Grid
Technologies (ISGT Europe), 2012 3rd IEEE PES International
Conference and Exhibition on , vol., no., pp.1,5, 14-17 Oct. 2012.
[19] A. C. Olteanu, G. D Oprina, N. Tapus, and S. Zeisberg, "Enabling
Mobile Devices for Home Automation Using ZigBee," in Proc. 2013
19th International Conference on Control Systems and Computer
Science (CSCS), pp.189-195.
[20] J. E. Kim, G. Boulos, J. Yackovich, T. Barth, C. Beckel, and D.
Mosse, "Seamless Integration of Heterogeneous Devices and Access
Control in Smart Homes," in Proc. 2012 8th International
Conference on Intelligent Environments (IE), pp.206-213.
[21] L. Y. Lin, M. C. Cheng, S. M Yuan, "Standards-based User Interface
Technology for Universal Home Domination," in Proc. 2006
International Conference on Hybrid Information Technology
(ICHIT), pp.298-307.
[22] M. Zareei, A. Zarei, R. Budiarto, and M. A Omar, "A comparative
study of short range wireless sensor network on high density
networks," in Proc. 2011 Asia-Pacific Conference on
Communications (APCC), pp.247-252.
[23] J. Ploennigs, U. Ryssel, and K. Kabitzsch, "Performance analysis of
the EnOcean wireless sensor network protocol," in Proc. 2010 IEEE
Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation
(ETFA), pp.1-9.
[24] A. Lottis, D. Hess, T. Bastert, and C. Rohrig, "Safe@home - A
wireless assistance system with integrated IEEE 802.15.4a
localisation technology," in Proc. 2013 IEEE International
Conference on Intelligent Data Acquisition and Advanced Computing
Systems (IDAACS), pp.461-467.
[25] "ZigBee standards and devices,"
http://www.zigbee.org/Standards/Overview.aspx.

605