Extending enterprise networks beyond the four-walls into outdoor spaces, particularly large outdoor spaces, has always been a challenge. In the past it has been simple to install a Wi-Fi access point on the side of a building and extend network access a few hundred feet (or tens of meters) from a building. But when it comes to broader areas that require coverage where extension of in-building access doesn’t suffice, a myriad of challenges arise including building out mounting structures and extending power and network backhaul to remote locations. These are often costly endeavors and providing an effective solution that minimizes the required build-out of infrastructure is essential.

These large outdoor environments and use-cases are diverse, from outdoor coverage for universities, hospitals, sporting facilities, warehouse yards, manufacturing campuses, agricultural fields and greenhouses, airports, and military bases… just to name a few. What has become clear over recent years is that private 5G is a key solution for enterprises to solve these challenges effectively while also minimizing the painful and costly task by minimizing the number of base stations required. Private 5G can provide cost-effective network coverage for very large outdoor campuses without the complexities associated with building out Wi-Fi networks that require 5-10x the number of base stations, avoid the need to design and operate complex Wi-Fi mesh networks that have limited performance, and allow enterprises to retain control of their data compared to public cellular providers.

Let’s take a closer look at why Private 5G excels in outdoor wide-area coverage for enterprises, compared to the Wi-Fi networks that most organizations are already familiar with.

A Real-World Outdoor Wireless Coverage Comparison

Wireless technologies such as 5G and Wi-Fi both provide broadband connectivity, but they have been engineered from inception with different purposes and goals. A key distinction is coverage range. A 5G standalone (SA) network operating in mid-band spectrum (3.4 – 4.2 GHz) generally achieves far greater coverage than a Wi-Fi network operating in the 5 GHz bands.

A recent project that Ataya implemented with a partner highlights this difference. A private school in California needed pervasive outdoor coverage for video security and mobile devices across a ~0.25 mi² campus (~7 million sq. feet / 650k sq. meters). To achieve campus coverage with Wi-Fi would have been impractical and a very complex and costly undertaking, so the network administrator engaged Ataya to consider a private 5G solution. The results were immediate: pervasive coverage across campus with a single 5G radio, compared to requiring 6-10 Wi-Fi radios. Let’s take a look at a single radio coverage comparison at this school campus. 

5G (left) vs Wi-Fi (right) Coverage at ~0.25 sq. mile area, 0.5 mile farthest point from radio:

5G (left) vs Wi-Fi (right) Coverage at ~4 sq. mile area, 2.85 miles farthest point from radio:

Expanding the footprint out to a much larger 4 sq. mi. area, with the farthest point being ~2.85 miles from the radio and the coverage differences between the technologies becomes even more apparent in larger wide-area environments.

Wireless Coverage Factors

This coverage difference arises from several fundamental factors, including transmit power allowances, noise floor characteristics, frequency propagation, antenna design, deployment height, and signal processing techniques.

1. Higher Transmit Power and Power Scaling in 5G

5G base stations benefit from much higher transmit power allowances than Wi-Fi access points in the 5 GHz band.

• 5G networks operate under local regulatory spectrum rules for private networks which allow for higher power operation than unlicensed spectrum for Wi-Fi. The private spectrum power limits are typically in the range of 42-47 dBm EIRP per 10 MHz of bandwidth depending on the country. Additionally, this power scales proportionally to larger bandwidths (carrier sizes), so if a radio transmits across a wider carrier (e.g., 20/40/80/100 MHz), the total permitted EIRP scales higher as well. Take an example in U.S. where 47 dBm / 10 MHz carrier is allowed; using a 20 MHz carrier would allow 50 dBm EIRP, and using a 40 MHz carrier would allow 53 dBm EIRP.  This scaling reflects the cellular design assumption that wider bandwidth deployments serve more users over a larger coverage footprint and therefore require higher overall radiated power.

• Wi-Fi in 5 GHz, by contrast, has a flat EIRP limit which varies depending on the specific portion of the frequency band used. This can vary between 23–36 dBm depending on country and device class, regardless of whether the access point is using a 20 MHz channel or a 40/80/160 MHz channel. As channel bandwidth increases, the power spectral density (dBm/MHz) decreases because total output power is capped, reducing effective range on wider Wi-Fi channels.

This regulatory difference in power scaling provides 5G a major advantage: not only can it transmit at higher power, but its coverage does not degrade when bandwidth increases, whereas Wi-Fi’s effective range shrinks at wider channel widths.

2. Lower Noise Floor for 5G Synchronization Signals

5G systems use specially designed synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) that occupy a much narrower portion of spectrum compared to Wi-Fi management signaling.

• An SSB in 5G NR at subcarrier spacing (SCS) of 15 kHz spans 20 physical resource blocks (PRBs), each consisting of 12 subcarriers. This means an SSB uses 240 subcarriers × 15 kHz = 3.6 MHz of bandwidth, even if the overall carrier bandwidth is much wider (e.g., 20, 40, or 100 MHz). By confining synchronization to just a few MHz, the effective noise floor is lower because thermal noise is proportional to bandwidth. These SSBs are easier to detect at low signal levels, meaning UEs (user equipment) can lock onto the network at lower RSRP values, often down to -110 dBm (or even lower when factoring in MIMO signal combining, polar codes and LDPC error correction at very low SNR, higher quality baseband DSP in 5G chipsets, and SSB burst set for repeating SSBs across beams or frequency locations).

• Wi-Fi management frames such as beacons and probe responses must be transmitted over the entire channel bandwidth. On a standard 20 MHz Wi-Fi channel, this means a Wi-Fi receiver’s noise floor is much higher, typically around -94 dBm, significantly higher than what a 5G UE experiences when locking onto an SSB. At even wider Wi-Fi channels (40, 80, 160 MHz), the noise floor rises further while transmit power does not increase, further reducing range.

As a result, 5G UEs can detect and synchronize with cell sites at much weaker absolute power levels down to around -114 dBm RSRP compared to Wi-Fi clients that require a received power level around –90 dBm to reliably detect management beacons. This fundamental design choice gives 5G a major receiver sensitivity advantage in initial access and coverage.

3. Frequency Propagation: 3.5 GHz vs. 5 GHz

Radio propagation improves at lower frequencies due to reduced free-space path loss and better diffraction around obstacles.

• 5G in mid-spectrum bands at 3.4 – 4.2 GHz experiences less attenuation over distance and penetrates walls or vegetation more effectively.
  
  
• Wi-Fi at 5.8 GHz suffers higher path loss and poorer obstacle penetration, which limits its effective coverage radius indoors and outdoors.

Even though the difference between 3.5 GHz and 5 GHz is modest, in practical deployments it translates into a noticeable improvement in link quality and coverage.

4. Deployment Height

5G base stations are typically installed on cell towers, rooftops, or tall poles, which gives them an advantageous line-of-sight to users and reduces obstruction from buildings and terrain.

Wi-Fi access points, on the other hand, are usually installed indoors or at human height (2–3 m above ground), where obstacles like walls, furniture, and people significantly reduce signal propagation. This deployment difference alone can multiply effective coverage distance for 5G compared to Wi-Fi. But as shown in the real-world example above, even at the same deployment height, Wi-Fi coverage is substantially less than 5G.

5. Antenna Gain and Phased Arrays

5G networks employ high-gain antennas and advanced phased array systems that can shape and steer beams dynamically toward users. This increases effective EIRP and enhances received signal strength, even at long distances.

Wi-Fi APs generally rely on low-gain omnidirectional or semi-directional antennas, which can limit range. Although some enterprise Wi-Fi systems use directional antennas, they rarely match the gain and beamforming sophistication of 5G gNodeB equipment.

6. Signal Gain from HARQ

5G employs Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) techniques at the physical layer, which combine retransmissions with soft combining of received signals. This effectively improves signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) over time, allowing reliable communication at lower instantaneous SNR thresholds.

Wi-Fi also uses retransmission, but without the same level of soft combining and coding gain as 5G. This means 5G can maintain connections at weaker signal levels where Wi-Fi would fail.

Conclusion

The superior coverage range of 5G standalone networks compared to Wi-Fi is not due to a single factor, but rather the combination of:

• Higher transmit power allowances that scale with bandwidth,
• Robust synchronization signals with lower effective noise floor,
• Better propagation in mid-band spectrum,
• Higher typical mounting heights,
• Higher gain and beamformed antennas, and
• Advanced error correction and HARQ processing

Together, these features make 5G far more effective for wide-area coverage, while Wi-Fi remains optimized for short-range, high-throughput indoor use.