Recently I was in a discussion where folks were comparing Bluetooth(BLE) and Ultra WideBand(UWB) for a ranging application. Some were saying the latest BLE 6 will replace UWB for ranging. I do not think it is that simple. Let’s discuss.
I have explained both techs in great detail in older posts, so please refer to it if needed. In short, BLE 6 gets true ranging through Channel Sounding. Instead of guessing distance from RSSI, it compares phase across many 2.4GHz channels, using round-trip time as a secondary check. UWB takes a different path by sending very short pulses across a very wideband(>500 MHz) and measures time of flight very precisely.
Theoretically, Bluetooth Channel Sounding is impressive. The Bluetooth SIG says it is designed for around ±20cm accuracy and can measure out to 150m in the right conditions. In real world, things are slightly different. Silicon Labs testing showed about 0.5m error in clear line of sight, but this can grow to around 5m without line of sight, and even close to 10m with fewer channels.
UWB is still the cleaner tool when distance is the only consideration. UWB typically delivers around 10cm accuracy in line of sight and often maintains sub‑meter accuracy in non line of sight, with practical line of sight ranges up to about 200m. That is why UWB is used in digital car keys and phone-based precision finding. It holds up better when reflections, body blocking, and multipath get ugly.
So my practical advice is: If you already have BLE in wearables, locks, or accessories, BLE6 ranging can be good enough for presence, room entry without adding another radio. If you need consistent sub-meter accuracy in cluttered environments, or you are making decisions based purely on distance, UWB remains the more reliable choice.
BLE 6 chips like Nordic nRF54 and NXP KW47 are just emerging, while UWB parts like Qorvo DW3000 are mature. BLE 6 is new, so combining both, like Apple’s Airtag approach, gives low-power discovery plus precise UWB ranging, if BOM costs allow it. So do consider this next time.
0 Comments