Both private 5G and private LTE deploy licensed-spectrum cellular infrastructure under your operational control. The differences between them — latency, throughput, network slicing, core architecture, device ecosystem, and cost — determine which is the right platform for a given operational environment. This page covers both technologies honestly, including where LTE is still the better choice.
The table below compares private LTE (Release 14–15) and private 5G NR (Release 15–17) across the parameters that matter most for industrial network design. Numbers reflect realistic deployed performance, not theoretical peak values.
| Parameter | Private LTE (4G) | Private 5G NR | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| User Plane Latency | 20–30ms typical | 1–10ms (URLLC capable) | 5G NR |
| Peak Downlink Throughput (sub-6GHz) | Up to 1 Gbps (LTE-A Pro, 4x4 MIMO) | Up to 4 Gbps (Massive MIMO, 64T64R) | 5G NR |
| Practical Throughput (deployed) | 50–300 Mbps | 100 Mbps–1.5 Gbps | 5G NR |
| Device Density (per km²) | ~100,000 devices | ~1,000,000 devices (mMTC) | 5G NR |
| Network Slicing | Not supported | Native (3GPP Release 15+) | 5G NR |
| Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) | Not supported | Release 16 (IEEE 802.1 integration) | 5G NR |
| Spectrum Efficiency | Baseline | 2–3x more efficient (Massive MIMO, beamforming) | 5G NR |
| Low-Power IoT Support | eMTC / NB-IoT (mature) | eMTC / NB-IoT (inherited, enhanced) | Equal |
| NPN Standards | No formal standard | Formally defined (3GPP Release 16) | 5G NR |
| Core Architecture | EPC (monolithic) | 5GC (service-based, cloud-native) | 5G NR |
| Mission Critical PTT | MCX over LTE (mature) | MCX over 5G (evolving) | LTE more mature |
| Device Ecosystem | Very mature, broad device range | Growing rapidly, industrial devices emerging | LTE today |
| Hardware Cost (RAN) | Lower (mature supply chain) | Higher (newer technology) | LTE |
| Software Core Cost | Lower (established vendors) | Comparable (cloud-native reduces OpEx) | Comparable |
| Spectrum Options (Canada) | Band 17/14, AWS, 2500MHz | 3500MHz (primary), sub-1GHz, mmWave | Context-dependent |
The network core is where the most significant architectural difference between private LTE and private 5G lies. Understanding this difference is essential for evaluating long-term operational flexibility.
Monolithic architecture. All functions typically deployed as a single hardware appliance or integrated software stack. Simpler to operate; harder to scale or customize individual components.
Cloud-native, microservices-based. Each network function runs as a container, communicating via REST APIs. The UPF can be deployed at the edge (local breakout) while AMF/SMF run centrally — enabling distributed architectures impossible with EPC.
In a private 5G deployment, a local UPF at the site ensures that all OT traffic stays on-site and never traverses a WAN link. This is not possible in standard EPC architectures, where the gateway functions are co-located. For utilities operating substations, or mines with remote sites, the ability to deploy a local UPF at each site while maintaining centralized control plane management is a significant architectural advantage.
Network slicing is native to 5G NR and is defined in 3GPP Release 15. It does not exist in LTE. This is the single most significant functional difference between the two technologies for multi-use-case industrial deployments.
A network slice is a logically isolated virtual network running over shared physical infrastructure. Each slice has its own QoS parameters, security policies, and performance guarantees. Multiple slices run simultaneously on the same spectrum and hardware — the physical layer is shared; the logical behaviour is isolated.
For organisations running both OT and IT traffic on a single private network, the absence of slicing in LTE forces architectural workarounds: separate physical networks, strict QCI configuration, and ongoing tuning. With 5G slicing, the isolation is enforced at the network level by design.
Spectrum availability differs significantly between LTE and 5G NR for private deployments in Canada. ISED (Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada) governs spectrum licensing.
Private LTE deployments in Canada have typically used spectrum in the following bands:
| Band | Frequency | Use | Licensing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Band 17 / Band 14 | 700 MHz | Wide-area coverage, rural/remote sites | Carrier partnership or spectrum lease required |
| Band 4 (AWS-1) | 1700/2100 MHz | Urban/suburban coverage | Carrier-held; private use requires agreement |
| Band 7 | 2600 MHz | Capacity layer in dense environments | Carrier-held |
| 900 MHz | 900 MHz | Indoor penetration, critical infrastructure | ISED site licensing available in some cases |
Private LTE in Canada has historically required either purchasing spectrum directly (difficult for enterprises) or partnering with a carrier to access their licensed spectrum. This is a significant barrier compared to the US CBRS framework, which allows enterprise spectrum access without carrier involvement.
The 3500 MHz band (3450–3650 MHz) is the primary band for private 5G in Canada, used globally as the primary mid-band 5G spectrum. ISED auctioned this band in 2021, with major carriers acquiring most licenses.
ISED offers local licensing frameworks in some bands that allow enterprises and industrial operators to acquire spectrum directly for a defined geographic area. For private 5G, this pathway is evolving — organizations with compelling operational use cases (mining, utilities, remote sites) have been able to obtain local spectrum access in bands where major carriers have not deployed. Engaging with ISED early in the planning process is advisable.
Sub-1GHz spectrum (700MHz, 850MHz) provides far superior coverage and NLOS propagation for large outdoor sites but is almost entirely carrier-held. mmWave (26GHz, 28GHz) offers extremely high throughput over short distances — useful for fixed wireless backhaul or small high-density zones — but has limited device support and poor NLOS performance.
Private LTE has a 10-year head start in device ecosystem maturity. Industrial routers, IoT modules, ruggedized handsets, vehicle-mounted modems, and sensor devices supporting LTE are available from dozens of manufacturers, across all major industrial form factors, with broad operating temperature ranges and certifications.
Private 5G's device ecosystem, while growing rapidly, is still maturing on the industrial side. Consumer and enterprise smartphones with 5G are abundant. Purpose-built industrial devices — explosion-proof handsets, vehicle modems with sub-10ms latency guarantees, low-cost 5G IoT modules — are available but with fewer options and higher costs than equivalent LTE devices.
| Device Category | LTE Ecosystem | 5G NR Ecosystem (2026) |
|---|---|---|
| Industrial routers (vehicle/fixed) | Very mature (Cradlepoint, Sierra Wireless, Peplink, Robustel) | Growing (Cradlepoint 5G, Sierra RV55, Peplink MAX) |
| IoT modules (PCB-level) | Very broad (Quectel, Sierra, Telit, u-blox) | Available, higher cost (Quectel RM5xx, Sierra EM9xxx) |
| Ruggedized handsets | Mature (Sonim, Kyocera, Samsung XCover) | Limited (Samsung Galaxy XCover6 Pro, emerging) |
| NB-IoT / eMTC sensors | Very broad, low cost | Inherited from LTE, same devices work |
| Industrial wearables / RTLS tags | Available | Emerging |
| 5G standalone CPE | N/A | Available (Nokia FastMile, Ericsson, Inseego) |
For deployments requiring a large number of low-cost connected devices today, private LTE often provides a broader, lower-cost device selection. This gap narrows significantly over 12–24 months as 5G module pricing approaches LTE module pricing.
One of the most important practical considerations: most private 5G hardware vendors support Non-Standalone (NSA) 5G operation, where 5G NR radio access is anchored to an LTE core (EPC). This allows a phased migration — LTE core today, 5G NR radio upgrade, 5GC core migration later.
However, for industrial deployments, Standalone (SA) 5G is generally the target architecture. NSA 5G does not provide network slicing, URLLC, or the full 5GC service-based architecture. The latency and reliability improvements that justify private 5G over private LTE require SA operation.
Many private LTE deployments use antenna infrastructure, cabling, and mounting hardware that is compatible with 5G NR radios. If the existing LTE deployment was designed with future 5G in mind — appropriate cable grades, mast load capacity, power infrastructure — the physical site can often be reused, with radio heads and core hardware being the primary replacement cost.
The honest answer depends on what the network needs to do, over what timeframe, and what spectrum is accessible. Below is a practical decision framework.
For most new industrial deployments in Canada today, private 5G NR in Standalone mode is the right architecture — not because LTE is inadequate, but because the 5G core's flexibility, slicing capability, and cloud-native design provide operational leverage that compounds over time.
The cost premium over LTE has narrowed significantly since 2022. Vendors like Celona, Athonet, and Nokia have brought private 5G core costs down to levels comparable with private LTE. The operational benefits of running a single 5GC that supports all use cases — URLLC for robots, mMTC for sensors, eMBB for video — outweigh the incremental hardware cost at most deployment scales.
The exception is deployments where existing LTE infrastructure is performing well, spectrum access favours LTE bands, or where the device ecosystem for specific use cases has not yet matured in 5G. In those cases, a planned migration path — LTE now, 5G NR radio and core upgrade within 3–5 years — is a defensible approach.
Technical reference pages across the Private5G.ca library.
A site assessment will establish whether private LTE, private 5G, or a phased migration approach makes sense for your operational environment and use case requirements.