The most complex bar code is still visual; RFID relies upon radio signals.
Radio-frequency identification (RFID) and bar codes serve much the same function, and RFID is replacing bar codes in some applications. Each has distinct advantages.
The most complex bar code is still visual; RFID relies upon radio signals.
Forms
Bar codes are printable; this is why publishers, canning companies and the like simply print the bar code on items to be sold.
RFID comes in tag or label form, which are electronic and encoded. RFID involves a small transponder, typically copper.
Cost
Bar codes are practically free, but they require electronic readers. These "guns" are hand-held, while a flat-bed style is used in grocery stores.
Bar code readers are far less expensive---as little as one-tenth the cost of RFID readers, which come in hand-held (gun) form; portal form, much like a metal detector; and smart tables, smart shelves, and so on.
Differences
Bar codes require the line of sight. The electronic reader must "see" the bar code.
RFID depends upon a radio signal; thus, line of sight is not required. Because of this, RFID can be read at longer ranges, and faster, than can bar codes.
Cost Justification
Usually, the choice between using bar codes or RFID comes down to cost. As of 2009, the lowest-level RFID tags cost at least $.07, while bar codes are free and are therefore more practical for single-item tagging of, for example, books and cans. But RFID is cost-effective for car chassis, cattle, and other high-cost items, where greater control is required.
Versatility
RFID comes in several frequencies with varying read ranges, read rates, and physics. These include high-frequency (HF), ultra-high frequency (UHF), and ultra-wideband (UWB). RFID is being adapted to real-time location systems (RTLS), which track items and people as they move (like hospital patients), a use for which bar codes have not proved practical.
Tags: RFID comes, upon radio, code still, code still visual, complex code, complex code still, line sight