Alternatives to Sewio: Choosing the Right RTLS Approach for Your Facility

If you’re searching for Sewio alternatives, chances are you’re already familiar with UWB RTLS. You’ve likely seen Sewio in demos, pilots, or early-stage deployments. You’re not trying to understand what RTLS is. You’re trying to understand whether Sewio is the right long-term fit, how it compares with other UWB providers like Pozyx, RedLore, or Kinexon, and what happens when your requirements go beyond a single technology or vendor.

That’s where many RTLS evaluations start to change shape.

In real facilities, RTLS decisions rarely stay confined to one vendor. Accuracy needs differ by zone, safety requirements evolve, and Digital Twin initiatives emerge. Suddenly, the question shifts from “Which RTLS vendor is best?” to “How do we build a location strategy that delivers maximum ROI across the entire operation?”

This blog takes a practical, deployment-led look at where Sewio fits, how teams compare it with other RTLS providers, and when a vendor-neutral, multi-technology approach makes more sense than committing to a single-vendor RTLS stack.

Why Explore Alternatives to Sewio

• • Pilot to scale transition: A UWB pilot works perfectly in a small assembly zone. But when you model that same infrastructure density across a 500,000 sq. ft. warehouse or yard, the CapEx explodes, killing the project’s ROI.

• • Changing environments and use cases: New zones introduce different conditions such as outdoor storage, dense metal racking, or mixed indoor-outdoor workflows. These environments often demand different accuracy profiles or complementary technologies alongside UWB.

• • Vendor diversification requirements: IT and OT leaders increasingly view long-term single-vendor dependency as a risk. As RTLS becomes operationally critical, teams look for architectures that allow technologies and hardware to evolve without replacing the entire system.

• • Expansion beyond tracking: RTLS programs often grow from basic asset visibility into safety, workflow optimization, compliance, and digital twin initiatives. These use cases require broader data integration and more flexibility than a standalone RTLS deployment typically supports.

These drivers reflect the moment when RTLS shifts from a “tech purchase” to an “architecture decision.” Teams realize that to maintain maximum ROI, they cannot force one vendor to do everything.

UWB RTLS Vendors Often Compared with Sewio

Once teams move beyond an initial UWB pilot, it is common to evaluate Sewio alongside other RTLS providers that address similar precision tracking needs. These vendors differ not only in technology choices, but also in how they approach deployment scale, environments, and integration.

Rather than looking at feature-level differences, teams typically compare vendors based on where and how they are used in real facilities.

The ROI Reality: Teams don’t pick up these vendors because one is universally superior. They pick them because each fits a specific “zone profile.” Realizing that no single vendor fits every zone is the first step toward a cost-effective architecture.

When A Single Vendor Is Enough and When It Is Not

Do you actually need a multi-vendor solution, or is one partner enough? The answer comes down to cost efficiency.

Why More Teams Are Moving to Multi-Vendor RTLS Architectures

As RTLS programs mature, the decision framework often shifts. Instead of asking which RTLS vendor is best, teams begin asking how location intelligence should work across the entire operation.

Historically, RTLS deployments were tightly coupled. Choosing a vendor often meant committing to their tags, anchors, and software as a single stack. As RTLS becomes more operationally critical, many organizations are moving away from this model toward vendor-neutral, multi-technology architectures.

The goal is not to replace existing systems, but to separate the hardware layer from the intelligence layer, allowing different technologies to be used where they make the most sense.

This shift is driven by ROI maximization:

• Different zones require different accuracy levels and tracking technologies
• Long-term dependency on a single vendor increases operational risk
• Facilities and layouts evolve faster than RTLS hardware lifecycles
• Digital twins, automation, and analytics require broader data integration

By treating hardware as a commodity and intelligence as a layer above it, UWB, BLE, and GPS can coexist. This ensures you are always using the most cost-effective technology for the job.

How LocaXion Fits into a Sewio Plus Others Landscape

When teams evaluate Sewio alongside other RTLS providers, one question comes up quickly: where does LocaXion fit in all of this?

LocaXion works with organizations that are already serious about RTLS and planning beyond a single pilot. This includes RTLS consultation and pilot planning, site surveys, infrastructure design, and the integration and managed services required to scale deployments.

LocaXion is NOT an alternative to Sewio and is not a hardware vendor. It does not sell tags, anchors, or proprietary RTLS platforms. Instead, LocaXion focuses on designing and integrating RTLS architectures that work across vendors and technologies.

In practice, this means supporting environments where:

• Sewio is used for high-precision indoor tracking in specific zones
• Other UWB, BLE, GPS, or vision-based systems are used where accuracy, coverage, or cost requirements differ
• RTLS data from multiple sources feeds a single operational view or Digital Twin

We help teams determine exactly which technology fits each zone. This allows you to apply high-precision tracking only where it delivers value, use cost-effective alternatives elsewhere, and maximize ROI without being locked into a single hardware vendor.

Implementation Pitfalls When Switching or Adding RTLS Vendors

When teams expand RTLS beyond an initial deployment or introduce additional vendors, the biggest risks are rarely technical failures. They are ROI leaks caused by decisions made without an architecture-first view.

Common pitfalls include:

• Unexpected infrastructure costs: Combining cabled UWB deployments with cable-free or WiFi-based options like BLE without early planning can drive installation and network costs beyond initial estimates.
• Over-engineering: Applying UWB precision to non-critical assets increases tag and maintenance costs without improving outcomes. ROI improves when UWB is limited to critical zones.
• Poor technology-to-zone matching: Using the same tracking technology across very different environments—such as assembly lines, storage areas, and yards—often leads to higher costs or compromised performance.
• Fragmented data and integrations: Adding UWB, BLE, or GPS systems independently can result in multiple dashboards and duplicate integrations, reducing the operational value of location data.
• Limited scalability planning: RTLS designs that work for a single UWB pilot often struggle when BLE zones, outdoor tracking, or additional sites are added later, increasing long-term cost and complexity.

These issues are not vendor specific. They arise when RTLS is implemented as isolated deployments rather than a unified architecture. A vendor-neutral approach helps teams decide where UWB precision is required, where BLE or other technologies are sufficient, and how to scale while protecting ROI.

Some Examples of Sewio Plus Multi-Vendor Deployments

Case A: The “Hybrid” Automotive Plant

• The setup: A Tier 1 supplier required sub-meter accuracy for torque tool validation on indoor assembly lines, while also managing a large outdoor storage yard.
• The architecture: Sewio UWB was used on indoor assembly lines to deliver high-precision tool tracking. GPS/LTE trackers were deployed in the outdoor yard to provide wide-area coverage without fixed infrastructure.
• The outcome: LocaXion unified the data streams into a single operational view. As racks moved through the dock doors, tracking automatically handed off from UWB to GPS, preserving end-to-end traceability without extending cabling outdoors.

Case B: The “High/Low” Value Mix

• The setup: A logistics center needed to track 50 forklifts and approximately 2,000 inventory bins across its facility.
• The architecture: High-precision UWB was deployed on forklifts to support safety use cases and path optimization. Low-cost BLE tags were applied to the 2,000 inventory bins, with forklifts acting as mobile BLE readers.
• The outcome: By combining UWB and BLE strategically, the solution delivered full visibility at significantly lower cost, saving more than $150,000 in tag hardware compared to an all-UWB approach while maximizing overall ROI.

FAQs About Alternatives to Sewio

The Next Step with LocaXion

Sewio is a formidable player in the UWB space, and for many specific use cases, it is the right choice. However, one vendor is rarely enough to cover the diverse reality of a modern industrial facility.

To achieve maximum ROI, different technologies are needed for different problems. It rarely makes sense to pay for sub-meter precision to track a low-value asset, just as it is risky to rely on basic Bluetooth for critical tools or safety workflows.

The most effective deployments use a multi-vendor RTLS architecture, combining the right technologies for each zone into a single, coherent operational view. This approach ensures organizations pay for the level of precision they actually need, exactly where it delivers value.

Rather than guessing which single vendor is “best,” the focus should be on designing an RTLS architecture that can evolve as the facility and use cases change.

If you are evaluating Sewio or other RTLS options and want clarity on what will deliver the best ROI for your environment, schedule a consultation with LocaXion. We help assess your facility layout, evaluate where different RTLS technologies make sense, and design a scalable, vendor-neutral RTLS and Digital Twin roadmap that keeps you in control of both your data and your budget.