Chip vs Chip

CC2642R vs WBZ451

<\/script>\n
'; }, get iframeSnippet() { const domain = '{ SITE_DOMAIN }'; const type = '{ embed_type }'; const slug = '{ embed_slug }'; return ''; }, get activeSnippet() { return this.method === 'script' ? this.scriptSnippet : this.iframeSnippet; }, copySnippet() { navigator.clipboard.writeText(this.activeSnippet).then(() => { this.copied = true; setTimeout(() => { this.copied = false; }, 2000); }); } }" @keydown.escape.window="open = false" @click.outside="open = false">

Embed This Widget

Theme


      
    


    
    

      Widget powered by
      .
      Free, no account required.
    

  




    
    
Side-by-side comparison of CC2642R and WBZ451 BLE SoCs.

    
    

      
    

  


  
  
  

    
      

        A
        
CC2642R

      

      

    
    
      

        B
        
WBZ451

      

      

    
  

  

  
  

  






  
  

    
CC2642R vs WBZ451: TI BLE Sensor Hub vs Microchip BLE+Zigbee PIC Ecosystem


The TI CC2642R and Microchip WBZ451 both serve multi-year battery-powered IoT endpoints but offer different protocol and ecosystem trade-offs. CC2642R is TI's ultra-low-power BLE 5.2 SoC with the unique Sensor Controller Engine. WBZ451 is Microchip's BLE 5.2 + Zigbee 3.0 chip targeting engineers in the MPLAB X/PIC ecosystem who need multi-protocol wireless without switching toolchains.




Overview


CC2642R is TI's Cortex-M4F BLE 5.2 SoC with 352 KB Flash, 80 KB RAM, Sensor Controller Engine (autonomous peripheral sampling at ~0.6 µA), ~1.4 µA standby, and -103 dBm RX sensitivity. BLE-only protocol support on a focused, efficient design.


WBZ451 integrates a 64 MHz Cortex-M4F with 256 KB RAM, 1 MB on-die Flash, BLE 5.2, and IEEE 802.15.4 (Zigbee 3.0). Hardware crypto includes AES-128/256, SHA-256, ECC, RSA, and TrustZone. It uses Microchip's Harmony 3 RTOS and MPLAB X IDE — the same toolchain used across the PIC32 family.




Key Differences


    

  • Protocol support: WBZ451 supports BLE 5.2 + Zigbee 3.0; CC2642R supports BLE 5.2 only.
    • 

  • Sensor Controller: CC2642R's SCE samples sensors autonomously at ~0.6 µA without the M4F waking; WBZ451 has no equivalent.
    • 

  • Memory: WBZ451 has 1 MB on-die Flash (significantly more than CC2642R's 352 KB) and 256 KB RAM (vs 80 KB).
    • 

  • Security: WBZ451 integrates TrustZone + AES/SHA/ECC/RSA hardware suite; CC2642R has AES-128 hardware but no TrustZone.
    • 

  • Ecosystem: WBZ451 plugs into MPLAB X + Harmony 3 (PIC/AVR world); CC2642R uses TI SimpleLink SDK + Code Composer Studio.
    • 

  • Power: CC2642R ~1.4 µA standby; WBZ451 standby current is comparable but Zigbee operation adds overhead during 802.15.4 activity.
    • 

  • External Flash: CC2642R typically requires external SPI Flash for OTA; WBZ451's 1 MB on-die Flash often eliminates this.
    • 

  • TrustZone: WBZ451 supports hardware TrustZone isolation; CC2642R does not.
    • 





Use Cases


Choose CC2642R for BLE-only sensor nodes where the Sensor Controller Engine provides autonomous peripheral sampling without CPU intervention — industrial sensors, medical patches, and environmental loggers running on small batteries for years.


Choose WBZ451 for BLE + Zigbee multi-protocol products in Microchip's ecosystem — smart home automation nodes, building sensors, and industrial devices where the MPLAB X toolchain is already in use, where 1 MB on-die Flash eliminates external Flash BOM cost, and where TrustZone security is a product requirement.




Verdict


CC2642R is the more power-efficient choice for BLE-only sensor applications, especially those exploiting the Sensor Controller Engine. WBZ451 provides multi-protocol Zigbee support, more on-die memory, and TrustZone security within the Microchip ecosystem. For a Zigbee+BLE smart home sensor in a PIC-centric organization, WBZ451; for a long-life industrial BLE-only sensor node with autonomous sampling, CC2642R.

  

  

  
  

  
  

    




  
Frequently Asked Questions


  

    
    

      
      

        
Our comparisons use verified datasheet specifications to create side-by-side tables. Each comparison includes a verdict explaining when to choose each option based on your project requirements.