Is Hubitat Elevation a Smartthings Killer

Ran across another article from home alarm report. Interesting read. Sharing it for others to enjoy.


This is nice because I didn't know what I was buying into until I had the hub. Not that st is different but it's nice to see it written out.

1 Like

One thing that sets Hubitat apart from SmartThings is that it lacks a native Android or iOS mobile app. Although, at Pepcom, we were told that one is coming soon.

Keyword is 'soon'. :slight_smile:

Decent article, but there's a couple of things in there that I'm pretty sure are not correct. Here's a glaring one...


Nice article but it talks about needing to be be hooked up to the internet quite a bit throughout the whole article, for example...

“You’ll only need to connect Hubitat to the internet if you want to pair a new device or create/edit Rules and Triggers.”

Edit: looks like other people caught it too lol


The next gen hub sounds cool, I'll be curious to see if it's worth upgrading from current once it's released.


There are other things I could pick on too... but overall I'm just happy to have people talking about the hub and getting more exposure.

1 Like

I think this is great, especially the part about manufacturing their own hardware. I don't think it's accurate to call HE a SmartThings killer, at least not yet, but with some continued refinement and maturity, I do think HE could be a top contender in the home hub space.

I'm very interested to know more about this new hub. A couple that come to mind now... Will the new hub have more CPU resources available? Will it be Zigbee 3 compliant?

I have been thinking of a stickless hub for cloud integrations and some of the more resource intensive automations. If this new hub is in fact more powerful, it might make sense to hold off until that's on the market and use the current hub for this purpose.

1 Like

I don't know where they got their information on the "next-gen" hub (I'd assume from staff at the event), but here is the most I've seen anyone say about it here: FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions - Technical Questions (tl;dr: same specs, unused ports gone, no mention of internal vs. external radios).

As for "Internet" connectivity, I think the writer is confusing that with just LAN connectivity--an important distinction (Hubitat only needs it for registration and downloading the initial firmware), and quite possibly one that's a lack of understanding on the author's part of what the difference is. They seem to have misunderstood other things as well--e.g., Hubitat Elevation is also the name of the current product, and it's been around for a year now.


I'm concerned about a new hub to be honest.. mine has a week. In the top of it I paid roughly 225€ for it between device, Shipping and customs. The main concerning reason is if the HW built is different than its a all different ball game.

  • Which hub will have priority through development?
  • How will be Support when will need to deal with 2 HW built and a likely different software package?
  • How will this impact one of the greatest things in HE that is their hotfixes and firmware updates?
  • And most important does HE really needs another hub at this point of his development?
  • What benefits does it bring to Hubitat Ecosystem and their User base.

I obviously cannot speak for the HE team, but it's safe to say that the platform architecture will be similar. HE is not like SmartThings with purpose-built circuit boards with very specific hardware. I'm not overly concerned about any sort of platform fragmentation from two having hubs.

Well, it depends whether we believe the guy who doesn't know the difference between the Internet and his home LAN or the comments staff have made here on the forum (albeit, very few and older than what someone would have heard at CES). :slight_smile: As far as staff have said on here, the next-gen hub will have:

The "slight revision" could include internal radios as the questionable article author mentioned, I guess, but even if so that seems like a minor issue since the Hubitat firmware is already prepared to deal with one of a few different radio configurations (nothing at all, an HUSBZB-1 for ZigBee and Z-Wave, or an HUSBZB-1 for ZigBee plus any of several Z-Sticks for different regions). I suspect the main reason--and benefit to consumers--is to eliminate the unused ports and thus potential confusion (and needless speculation), besides making box look more appealing and "professional" (which internal radios would also help with, as much as I'd hate to see the versatility the external ones currently provide disappear).

I wonder if Hubitat will continue to offer external Z-Wave radios for countries that require a different frequency? I would be expensive for them to need to manufacture multiple models that are region specific.

1 Like

I personally like the ability to extend the stick with a USB cable away from my hub. Mine sits on a shelf at the top of my server rack in the basement.

I could always move it but then I’d have to figure out where to, then deal with power and ethernet.

Also it is nice to be able to just remove the antenna if it does for some reason.


Sometimes I really wish I didn’t sign an NDA :slight_smile:



I'm good at keeping secrets. I'd sign an NDA. :slight_smile:


If you could ask ONE question and have me answer it...
What would that question be?

What is the most burning question that I could answer?


What's the meaning of life?

1 Like



(According to ‘Deep Thought’)


Eh no questions on my side.

A wish, though, would be some sandboxing between the built in apps and system functions versus the user apps and drivers. So poorly written user space apps can't kill the core system. Because they most definitely can right now.

Probably not doable on the current hardware. Probably technically doable though, in general, if it is *nix based as I've read elsewhere.

If I had a second wish, it would be to see the current CPU load and memory usage. Because if I have to watch over the resources, I should at least be able to see them. :slight_smile: