Camera-based analytics vs WiFi & Bluetooth trackers.
Device-counting tools measure phones and call it attendance. Here's the honest comparison — including the cases where WiFi coverage genuinely makes sense.
| Capability | Campaign Vision | WiFi / BLE trackers |
|---|---|---|
| Counts people, not devices WiFi/BLE counts phones — missing groups sharing a device, kids, and anyone with WiFi off. | Yes | No |
| Unaffected by phone privacy features Modern iPhones and Android phones randomize their WiFi identifiers by default, degrading device counts further every year. | Yes | No |
| No device identifiers collected MAC addresses are personal data under GDPR — logging them is not anonymity. | Yes | No |
| Dwell time & engagement quality | Yes | Limited |
| Zone-by-zone heatmaps | Yes | Limited |
| Attention & action-zone conversion | Yes | No |
| Works with cameras you already have WiFi tools require their own sensors on site. | Yes | No |
| Covers huge outdoor areas without infrastructure Honest trade-off: where no cameras exist and none can be mounted, WiFi coverage is easier to scatter. | Limited | Yes |
| AI-written client reports | Yes | No |
Where WiFi tracking genuinely wins.
- Very large outdoor footprints with no camera infrastructure and no way to mount any — scattering WiFi sensors may be the only practical coverage.
- Counting is genuinely secondary — if you only need a rough directional trend and precision doesn't matter, device counting is cheap at scale.
For activations, booths, pop-ups, and events where engagement matters — the cases this site is about — counting people rather than devices isn't a nice-to-have; it's the difference between a number you can defend and one you can't.
Common questions
Why does device counting undercount real attendance?
Because phones aren't people. Groups often carry one phone among several visitors, children typically carry none, and anyone with WiFi off is invisible. On top of that, iOS and Android now randomize WiFi identifiers by default, so the same phone can appear as multiple devices — or evade counting entirely. Camera-based counting sees the people who are actually there.
Is WiFi tracking really a privacy problem?
It deserves scrutiny. WiFi tracking works by logging device identifiers (MAC addresses) with time and location — that's personal data under GDPR, which makes 'anonymous' a claim worth challenging. Camera-based systems vary too: the question to ask any vendor is what's stored. Our system stores no video and no identifiers of any kind — only derived counts. We've published a full guide to the questions worth asking.
We already have WiFi sensors. Can we run both?
Yes, and it's a fair test: run camera-based measurement alongside your existing setup at one event and compare what each reports against reality at the door. We're happy to be measured against the incumbent — ask us to set up exactly that comparison.
Put both methods side by side.
Run Campaign Vision alongside your current setup at one event and compare the numbers. Book a demo and we'll set up the head-to-head.