Chip vs Chip

CC2642R vs STM32WB55

<\/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 STM32WB55 BLE SoCs.

    
    

      
    

  


  
  
  

    
      

        A
        
CC2642R

      

      

    
    
      

        B
        
STM32WB55

      

      

    
  

  

  
  

  






  
  

    
CC2642R vs STM32WB55: TI Sensor Hub vs ST Dual-Core BLE+Zigbee MCU


The TI CC2642R and ST STM32WB55 both serve the BLE microcontroller space but from distinctly different platform strategies. CC2642R is TI's ultra-low-power BLE 5.2 SoC with a unique autonomous Sensor Controller Engine. STM32WB55 is ST's dual-core approach to BLE + Zigbee/Thread, with a dedicated M0+ network processor freeing the M4 application CPU from radio interrupts — and deep integration with ST's massive STM32 peripheral ecosystem.




Overview


CC2642R is a 48 MHz Cortex-M4F with 352 KB Flash, 80 KB RAM, BLE 5.2, Sensor Controller Engine, and ~1.4 µA standby. Its Sensor Controller autonomously samples ADC, I2C, SPI at ~0.6 µA without waking the M4F core.


STM32WB55 uses a 64 MHz Cortex-M4 application processor alongside a dedicated 32 MHz Cortex-M0+ network processor running the BLE 5.4 / Thread / Zigbee 3.0 radio stack. It has 1 MB Flash, 256 KB RAM (shared between cores), hardware AES-256/PKA/RNG/SHA, USB-FS, and is available in 48–100 pin packages. Standby: ~2.2 µA with RTC.




Key Differences


    

  • Protocol support: STM32WB55 supports BLE 5.4 + Thread + Zigbee 3.0; CC2642R supports BLE 5.2 only.
    • 

  • Dual-core radio isolation: STM32WB55 runs the radio stack on a dedicated M0+ — the M4 application CPU runs deterministic real-time tasks without BLE interrupt interference; CC2642R's radio CPU handles BLE independently but the architecture is different.
    • 

  • Sensor Controller: CC2642R's SCE autonomously samples sensors at ~0.6 µA without waking the M4F; STM32WB55 has no equivalent.
    • 

  • Flash: STM32WB55 has 1 MB Flash (vs 352 KB) — significantly more for complex applications.
    • 

  • STM32 ecosystem: STM32WB55 integrates with STM32CubeIDE, CubeMX, HAL libraries, and millions of STM32 engineers' existing workflows.
    • 

  • BLE version: STM32WB55 supports BLE 5.4 (the latest); CC2642R supports BLE 5.2.
    • 

  • Power: CC2642R at ~1.4 µA standby vs STM32WB55 at ~2.2 µA — CC2642R is slightly more efficient.
    • 

  • USB: STM32WB55 integrates USB Full Speed; CC2642R has no USB.
    • 





Use Cases


Choose CC2642R for industrial BLE-only sensor nodes benefiting from Sensor Controller autonomous sampling, medical wearables, asset trackers, and applications requiring the absolute minimum standby current.


Choose STM32WB55 for BLE + Zigbee/Thread multi-protocol products, teams with existing STM32 codebase investment, products requiring USB connectivity, applications needing 1 MB Flash for large application firmware, or designs where the dual-core architecture's real-time isolation is architecturally beneficial.




Verdict


STM32WB55 offers more Flash, BLE 5.4, Thread/Zigbee, USB, and deep STM32 ecosystem integration — making it the stronger general-purpose multi-protocol MCU. CC2642R wins on standby power and uniquely on Sensor Controller autonomous sampling, which no STM32 device matches. For teams building on STM32 hardware, WB55 is the natural wireless extension; for new BLE-only sensor designs prioritizing power and 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.