One reason why Wi-Fi 7® is twice as fast as Wi-Fi 6/6E is because it supports Multi-Link Operation (MLO), which enables Wi-Fi 7 devices to aggregate 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz channels to maximize throughput. Another reason is that Wi-Fi 7 uses a higher order of Multi-User Multiple Input Multiple Output (MU-MIMO) antenna technology, which enables its access points and user devices to support twice as many simultaneous streams: up to 16×16 versus 8×8 for Wi-Fi 6/6E.
Wi-Fi 7 certification technically doesn’t require MIMO. But it is a de facto enterprise requirement because CIOs, IT managers, and other buyers frequently expect the kind of speed boost that Wi-Fi 7 promises — and that MIMO helps enable. For device engineers, that requirement highlights the importance of understanding not only how to use MIMO effectively, but also its relationship with MLO. (For more insights into certification and related aspects, see “Navigating Wi-Fi 7® Certification for Device OEMs.”)
When MIMO isn’t a Must Have . . .
If a Wi-Fi 7 device will be used for low-bandwidth applications, MIMO might be overkill, making a single-antenna design sufficient. An example is an IoT sensor/controller that benefits from using the relatively open 6 GHz band (5.925 to 7.125 GHz) that Wi-Fi 6/6E pioneered. Sure, that device could use Wi-Fi 6/6E, but Wi-Fi 7 certification could provide a competitive edge when selling to enterprises that want the latest technology for future proofing.
Forgoing MIMO to use only one antenna also simplifies that device’s design and reduces its BOM. That can be another competitive advantage because the market for low-bandwidth IoT devices is notoriously price sensitive.
. . . and When It is
Bandwidth-intensive enterprise applications rely on MU-MIMO for the spatial streams necessary to achieve peak speeds. Wi-Fi 7 supports 4096‑QAM, whose gains are incremental, whereas MU-MIMO delivers linear throughput gains. For example, under equal conditions, 2×2 MU-MIMO in a 160 MHz channel is faster than 1×1 at 320 MHz
Another reason is to wring the maximum capacity, speed, and thus return from their WLAN infrastructure investment. A Wi‑Fi 7 AP using MU-MIMO supports up to 16 spatial streams, while a Single Input Single Output (SISO) AP would waste most of the standard’s capability.
There’s also a cybersecurity aspect. If the company WLAN can’t provide the performance that employees expect, there’s a good chance that they’ll look for alternative connections, which might be unsecure, putting business data at risk.
MLO + MIMO
MLO and MIMO are both built on the concept of spatialism but use it in different ways to maximize performance. MU-MIMO uses multiple spatial streams, while MLO uses multiple links spread across multiple bands.
These differences mean device OEMs can use MLO and MU-MIMO separately or to complement each other:
- MLO without MU-MIMO (e.g., 1×1 on 5 GHz and 6 GHz)
- MU-MIMO without MLO (e.g., 2×2 in a single band)
- MU-MIMO + MLO (maximum performance because MU-MIMO provides spatial streams while MLO aggregates links).
| Device Type | Typical Configuration |
| IoT | 1×1 MIMO, single band |
| Wearables | 1×1, often no MLO |
| Smartphones | 2×2 + MLO |
| XR | 2×2 or 4×4 + MLO |
| Consumer Routers | 2×2 to 4×4 |
| Enterprise APs | 4×4 to 8×8 |
| High‑End APs | Up to 16×16 |
From a design perspective, two key points to keep in mind are that MLO drives radio count, while MIMO drives antenna count. If the device form factor or something else necessitates a minimal amount of antennas, then the design will rely on MLO to maximize reliability/latency, and lower peak throughput as a trade-off. But if the device will be marketed for enterprise-grade high performance, then it must support both MLO and MU-MIMO.
To wring maximum performance out of MU-MIMO, the antennas must be carefully integrated to minimize coupling and maximize throughput. Taoglas engineers can help device OEMs successfully navigate that process — and potentially get the product to market faster by avoiding pitfalls that require redesigns.
