LORA2021 vs. Previous-Generation LoRa Chips: An Engineering Perspective

Abstract

Over the past several years,  G-NiceRF has used Semtech second-generation (SX1261/SX1262) and third-generation (LR1121/LR1120) LoRa chips in multiple real-world projects. These solutions have demonstrated stable performance in typical Sub-GHz LPWAN scenarios. However, in some projects, as the number of nodes increases, gateway-side concurrent reception and parameter planning become constrained; in other projects, additional system-level design is required to address battery budget limitations and multi-protocol coexistence.

Based on Semtech’s fourth-generation LoRa IP, LR2021 offers higher sensitivity and higher data rates.

By combining specification parameters with an engineering perspective, this article provides a comparative analysis of these differences to help engineers determine whether, and in which scenarios, upgrading to LORA2021 is necessary.

Note: This article is intended for engineering analysis rather than performance ranking or marketing conclusions.

1. Core Technology Generation Comparison

1.1 Comparison with LoRa Second Generation (SX1261/SX1262): Core Parameters and Architecture

• ·SX1261/SX1262 are representative products of Semtech’s second-generation LoRa IP and have been widely deployed in the market.
• ·LR1121/LR1120 are representative products of Semtech’s third-generation LoRa IP and have also seen broad market adoption.
• ·LR2021 is based on the fourth-generation LoRa IP. All three generations cover the Sub-GHz LoRa ecosystem; starting from the third generation, support was extended to 2.4 GHz and additional protocol physical layers; the fourth generation further enhances reception architecture, power consumption, and frequency band coverage.

Engineering significance:

When evaluating high node-density networks, the key advantage we value in fourth-generation LoRa IP is concurrent reception capability. The value of Multi-SF lies in the fact that nodes using different spreading factors on the same channel do not need to be forcibly unified in configuration, reducing parameter-planning constraints during network expansion (actual benefits depend on node density and air-interface utilization).

2. Frequency Band Coverage Comparison

2.1 Supported Frequency Ranges

LoRa Chip Frequency Coverage Comparison (2nd / 3rd / 4th Generation)

Engineering value:

As node count increases, single-SF reception becomes a network bottleneck.

In the previous two generations, different hardware SKUs were often required for different regions (e.g., EU 868 MHz, US 915 MHz, China 470 MHz) or different applications (short-range 2.4 GHz vs. long-range Sub-GHz).

In multi-node systems, the three-band integration of LORA2021 enables more flexible network capacity planning. In our multi-region projects, such integration does help reduce SKU count; however, whether it significantly lowers inventory and supply-chain complexity still depends on actual shipment volume.

• · Second Generation (SX1261 / SX1262)

Only supports Sub-GHz bands; multi-region or multi-application projects typically require multiple hardware SKUs, increasing system complexity.

• · Third Generation (LR1121 / LR1120)

Introduces Sub-GHz + S-Band + 2.4 GHz tri-band support, improving application adaptability and covering both long-range low-power and short-range high-speed communication.

• · Fourth Generation (LR2021)

Forms a unified Sub-GHz + 2.4 GHz + S-Band architecture. In projects requiring simultaneous Sub-GHz and 2.4 GHz support and potential future NTN integration, tri-band integration reduces the likelihood of hardware divergence; whether SKUs can be reduced depends on whether multiple regions and service types must be supported simultaneously.

3. Receiver Performance Comparison

3.1 Sensitivity Metrics

Technical interpretation:

• • The Sub-GHz LoRa sensitivity improvement to -141.5 dBm corresponds to a nominal gain of approximately 4.5 dB. From an engineering standpoint, this mainly affects edge links: at the same transmit power, packet loss rate decreases. In urban and industrial environments, we observed improvements primarily in stability rather than order-of-magnitude distance increases. Final performance is still influenced by antenna efficiency, installation height, noise floor, and re-transmission strategy.
• • Although FLRC sensitivity (-111 dBm @260 kbps) is lower than that of LoRa mode, it represents a clear improvement over traditional FSK modulation and provides a better link budget for high-speed data transmission.

Summary comparison across three generations:

• · Second Generation (SX1261 / SX1262)

Reception capability is focused on Sub-GHz LoRa; sensitivity meets LPWAN baseline requirements, but band and modulation options are limited.

• · Third Generation (LR1110 / LR1120)

Extends to 2.4 GHz LoRa, but sensitivity remains significantly lower than Sub-GHz and FLRC high-speed mode is not supported.

• · Fourth Generation (LR2021)

Achieves sensitivity improvements on both Sub-GHz and 2.4 GHz and introduces FLRC high-speed modulation, balancing long-range, low-power, and high-throughput requirements—an architectural-level upgrade in reception performance.

4. Transmission Performance Comparison

4.1 Data Rate Range

Transmission Performance Comparison (Modulation and Data Rate Capability)

Key Innovation: FLRC Mode

FLRC (Fast-Link Radio Communication) is a new high-speed modulation option introduced by Semtech for LR2021. While maintaining a relatively favorable link budget, it delivers data rates up to 2.6 Mbps. FLRC is more suitable for short-duration, high-throughput scenarios such as factory configuration, firmware upgrades, and log or bulk data retrieval; it is not recommended as the primary mode for long-range always-on links.

• • Firmware upgrade acceleration: Under traditional LoRa mode, upgrading a 1 MB firmware image may take several hours. FLRC can significantly shorten upgrade time; actual duration depends on link quality, packet size, retransmission strategy, and application-layer protocol.
• • Log and data download: Industrial sensors and weather stations can transmit relatively large data volumes in a short time, rather than being forced to compress or discard data.
• • Hybrid mode design: Devices may operate in low-speed LoRa mode for power savings during normal operation and switch to FLRC for rapid data exchange when required. This enables a “low-speed long-range + short-range high-speed” hybrid communication strategy, though it requires additional protocol switching and power-management design.

5. Power Consumption Comparison

5.1 Static Power Consumption (Sleep / Standby)

In typical IoT nodes that spend >99% of their time in sleep, reductions in static power consumption directly translate into multi-year battery life and represent a key metric for ultra-low-power design.

5.2 Dynamic Power Consumption (Active)

5.3 Impact on Battery Life

Assume a battery-powered IoT node with a 2000 mAh lithium battery, reporting data 10 times per day (1 s TX, 5s RX per report), with the remainder in deep sleep:

Conclusion:

Although LR2021’s per-event or instantaneous current improvements are modest, in applications where nodes remain in sleep for >99% of the time, the reduction of deep-sleep current from 1.2 µA to 470 nA accumulates over long-term operation and widens the gap. Under the stated assumptions, theoretical lifetime increases from ~15.6 to ~19.6 years; accounting for battery aging, this corresponds roughly to a shift from ~12 to ~15 years.

6. Protocol Compatibility Comparison

LORA2021 supports or is compatible with:

• · LoRaWAN
• · Amazon Sidewalk
• · Wi-SUN
• · Wireless M-BUS
• · Z-Wave / Z-Wave LR
• · IEEE 802.15.4 (Zigbee / Thread)
• · BLE 5.0 (physical layer)

This makes it more suitable for multi-protocol gateways or devices, rather than single-purpose nodes.

Protocol Compatibility Comparison (2nd / 3rd / 4th Generation)

Engineering significance:

Such broad protocol compatibility positions LORA2021 as a physical-layer foundation for multi-protocol platforms.

Typical application value:

• • A smart home gateway can support Zigbee, Thread, and LoRaWAN simultaneously, reducing the need for multi-chip solutions (whether a true “single-chip solution” is achievable still depends on protocol stack and system architecture).
• • An industrial gateway can integrate Wi-SUN, Z-Wave, and Wireless M-BUS on the same hardware platform.
• • Consumer devices can combine BLE for short-range high-speed communication with LoRa for long-range low-power connectivity.

7. Advanced Technology Comparison

7.1 LR-FHSS (Long-Range Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum)

LR-FHSS Capability Comparison (2nd / 3rd / 4th Generation)

Technical depth:

LR-FHSS mitigates persistent interference and congestion on single frequencies by rapidly hopping across a wide spectrum. Its advantage lies in frequency diversity and reduced collision probability. When node density increases and air-interface congestion becomes significant, LR-FHSS simplifies capacity planning; benefits depend on hopping parameters, duty-cycle limits, and network-side scheduling.

Best-fit scenarios:

• · High-density satellite IoT: Frequency hopping significantly reduces collision probability when multiple ground nodes transmit simultaneously to satellites.
• · Industrial 4.0 in heavily interfered ISM bands: In factories with welding machines and variable-frequency drives, LR-FHSS improves robustness and success rate of critical data links (still requiring retransmission and upper-layer strategies).
• · Urban dense satellite backhaul deployments: In environments with dense wireless activity, LR-FHSS offers a viable technical path for large-scale deployment.

Integrated technical note:

The third generation (LR1121 / LR1120) first introduced LR-FHSS, marking a key evolution in the LoRa ecosystem. The fourth generation (LR2021) further improves system-level capacity and robustness through optimized reception and scheduling mechanisms.

7.2 RTToF (Round-Trip Time-of-Flight) Ranging

Feature

Engineering application:

The introduction of RTToF enables LORA2021 to provide basic positioning capability without GPS and without expensive additional hardware.

• · Basic positioning: Using round-trip time measurements between multiple gateways with known locations and mobile nodes, position accuracy of approximately 1–5 m can be achieved.
• · Asset tracking: Rapidly locate equipment or goods in industrial parks and warehouses.
• · Geofencing: Automatically trigger alerts when devices leave predefined areas.

Upgrade note:

When upgrading from LR1121/LR1120 to LR2021, RTToF application models and software logic can be reused directly. Upgrade benefits are mainly reflected in system-level stability and power performance.

9. Application Scenario Adaptability Comparison

9.1 Typical Application Scenarios

10. Summary: Engineering Positioning of LORA2021

10.1 From Single Sub-GHz Solutions to a Multi-Band, Multi-Modulation PHY Platform

If summarized in one sentence, the core difference between LORA2021 and previous-generation LoRa chips is:

LORA2021 expands capability boundaries, reduces constraints, and provides more options.

• • Tri-band integration → reduces multi-SKU design constraints and regional hardware divergence
• • Fourth-generation LoRa IP → improves network capacity, reliability, and stability
• • Lower sleep current → nA-level sleep current suitable for high-sleep-ratio nodes
• • Broad protocol compatibility → easier integration into mainstream ecosystems (subject to protocol stack implementation)
• • LR-FHSS + RTToF → additional options; RTToF provides new paths for asset tracking and geofencing

For engineers, multi-band and multi-modulation capabilities provide greater flexibility in parameter combinations. In real designs, trade-offs among data rate, range, and power are inevitable; these capabilities make such trade-offs more controllable and allow solutions to be tailored to actual application requirements.

10.2 Core Recommendations for Engineers

1. 1.For single Sub-GHz LoRaWAN nodes, SX126x remains a stable choice in terms of cost and supply chain.
2. 2. For projects requiring multiple bands, multiple applications, or multi-region coverage—and especially those needing Sub-GHz + 2.4 GHz or higher gateway concurrency—LR2021 should be shortlisted.
3. 3. For NTN, high-interference industrial environments, or short-duration high-speed data retrieval (updates/logs), LR2021 reduces system divergence, but field link and power validation is still recommended.
4. 4.For satellite communication, high-interference industry, or positioning requirements, LORA2021 currently offers advantages in multi-band and multi-protocol PHY-layer projects and should be prioritized for evaluation.
5. 5.For new product designs, LORA2021 is recommended as a candidate and should undergo field validation.

Overall, previous-generation chips are mature in Sub-GHz LoRa scenarios and suit single-band, single-purpose, cost-sensitive products. LORA2021 (LR2021) offers more options in multi-band, multi-modulation, and protocol PHY support, making it better suited for product lines targeting multiple regions or service types or aiming to reduce SKUs. Upgrade decisions should consider band requirements, node scale, maintenance needs (e.g., updates/logs), and BOM and mass-production costs, with field validation during pilot production.

References

• · Semtech LR2021 Datasheet (v1.1, October 2025)
• · Semtech SX1261/SX1262 Datasheet
• · Semtech LR1110/LR1120 Datasheet
• · LoRaWAN Specification v1.0.4
• · Official protocol documentation (Wi-SUN, Z-Wave, IEEE 802.15.4, etc.)