Wi-Fi Range Explained: Great Expectations vs. Harsh Reality of the Invisible Magic

One of the most essential elements of a home router is its Wi-Fi range. Wireless signals are invisible, so how far they can actually go is often up to interpretation, and hardware vendors tend to exaggerate that greatly.

The most important thing to remember about Wi-Fi is that newer or more expensive hardware doesn’t necessarily translate into farther signal reach.

This post will explain the coverage of each Wi-Fi band based on real-world experience. When through, you’ll be able to form realistic expectations and figure out the real-world range of your broadcaster, be it a router or a mesh unit.

Dong’s note: I first published this post on February 12, 2024, and updated it on March 21, 2025, to add up-to-date, relevant information.

Wi-Fi range and coverage: It’s a significantly compressed large ball (or circle)

The first thing we should appreciate about a Wi-Fi broadcaster’s coverage is that it emits signals outward to form an invisible ball—the range is the radius of a spherical object.

However, most of the time, users don’t look at Wi-Fi coverage this way.

The flat surface perception

We generally perceive our world as a flat surface—that’s just how we move around in daily life. For this reason, hardware vendors often use square footage to show a Wi-Fi broadcaster’s coverage, which is inherently incorrect.

However, using the cubic footage measurement can be challenging for users to relate, and the relationship between a Wi-Fi broadcaster and a specific receiver (a device) is indeed always on a leveled surface plane—it’s a matter of which plane.

We’ll get back to this shortly, but in any case, there’s a massive gap between how far Wi-Fi signals can reach in theory and real life.

Let’s start with the theory.

Wi-Fi range in theory: It’s “clean” and generous

The way radio signals work is that the lower the frequency, the longer the wave can travel. AM and FM radios use frequency measured in kilohertz and megahertz—you can listen to the same station in a vast area, like an entire region or a city.

Wi-Fi uses 2.4GHz, 5GHz, and 6GHz frequencies—all of which are incredibly high. As a result, it has much shorter ranges than radios. That’s especially true when considering that the broadcasting power of Wi-Fi broadcasters is limited by regulations.

The highest allowed broadcasting power for Wi-Fi in the U.S. is 1 watt or 30 dBm. Wi-Fi 7’s Automated Frequency Coordination (AFC) increases this, but only enough to compensate for the fact that the 6GHz is inherently short in range.

But, regardless of Wi-Fi standards, these bands generally share the following: The higher the frequencies (in Hz), the higher the bandwidth (speeds), the shorter the ranges, and the more bandwidth progressively lost over increasing distance.

Generally, physically larger Wi-Fi broadcasters tend to have better ranges than smaller ones—they use all the allowed broadcasting power and have enough processing power to deliver the most bandwidth at the far end of the signal. Still, it’s impossible to accurately determine each’s actual coverage because it fluctuates wildly and depends heavily on the environment.

That said, here are my estimates of a home Wi-Fi broadcaster’s ranges in the best-case scenario, specifically:

• Outdoor environment
• On a sunny day
• No interference or broadcasters in close proximity
• Maximum broadcasting power (30 dBm)

Note that Wi-Fi signals don’t die abruptly but gradually degrade as you get farther away from the broadcaster. The distances mentioned below are when a client still receives signals strong enough for a meaningful connection. Wi-Fi performance also depends on hardware and Wi-Fi standards—a Wi-Fi 7 router is not better than a Wi-Fi 5 one, in range and whatnot, if the network mainly consists of Wi-Fi 5 and older clients.

• 2.4GHz: This band has the best range, up to 200 ft (≈ 60 m). However, it is the most popular band also used by non-Wi-Fi devices like cordless phones or TV remotes. Its real-world speeds suffer severely from interference and other factors. As a result, for years, this band has been considered a backup, applicable when range is more important than speed.
• 5GHz: This band has much faster speeds than the 2.4GHz band but shorter ranges, maxing out at around 150 ft (≈ 45 m).
• 6GHz: This is the latest band available. Two things to keep in mind:
  • Wi-Fi 6E: The first standard supporting this band, which shares the same ceiling speed as the 5GHz. However, thanks to the less interference and overheads, its actual real-world rate is faster. In return, due to the higher frequency, it has just about 70% of the range, which maxes out at approximately 115 ft (≈ 35m).
  • Wi-Fi 7: This is the latest standard where the 6GHz band’s channel width (and bandwidth) is doubled. Additionally, with a broadcaster that supports AFC, such as the Ubiquiti E7, this band gets a boost in broadcasting power to deliver the same range as that of the 5GHz.

Wi-Fi range in real life: The devil is in the little and big details

In real-world usage, Wi-Fi broadcasters in the same frequency band and broadcasting power generally deliver the same coverage. Specifically, they are all the same if you measure the signal reach alone.

What differentiates them is their sustained speeds and signal stability, or how the quality of their Wi-Fi signals changes as you increase the distance. And that generally varies from one model or Wi-Fi standard to another.

Your router’s Wi-Fi range is always much shorter than the theoretical number mentioned above. That’s because Wi-Fi signals are sensitive to interference and obstacles.

While the Wi-Fi range doesn’t depend on the channel width, the wider the channel and the higher the frequency, the less stable it becomes. It’s more susceptible to interference and obstacles, and its range is more acutely hindered. So, within the same standard, more bandwidth generally equals higher fragility.

Below are the items that will affect Wi-Fi ranges.

It’s worth noting that the new 6GHz band generally doesn’t suffer from the same-band interference other than when you use multiple broadcasters nearby. On the other hand, the 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands have a long list of other non-Wi-Fi applications that can harm their ranges, and there are always many broadcasters in close proximity using these bands when you live in an urban neighborhood.

Common 2.4 GHz interference sources: Impossible to measure

• Other 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi broadcasters in the vicinity
• 2.4GHz cordless phones and other appliances
• Fluorescent bulbs
• Bluetooth devices
• Microwave ovens

Common 5 GHz interference sources: Impossible to measure

• Other nearby 5GHz Wi-Fi broadcasters
• 5GHz cordless telephones and other appliances
• Radars
• Digital satellites

Common signal blockage for all Wi-Fi bands: Measurable, albeit challenging, walls and large objects

Physical objects, such as appliances or elevators, hinder all Wi-Fi bands. However, walls are the most problematic obstacle since they are everywhere. Different types of wall blocks Wi-Fi signals differently, but no wall is good for Wi-Fi.

Here are my rough real-life estimations of how much a wall blocks Wi-Fi signals—generally use the low number for the 2.4GHz and the high one for the 5GHz, add another 10%-15% to the 5GHz for the 6GHz band:

1. A thin, porous wall (wood, sheetrock, drywall, etc.) will block between 5% and 30% of Wi-Fi signals—a router’s range will be much shorter when placed next to it.
2. A thick porous wall: 20% to 40%.
3. A thin nonporous wall (concrete, metal, ceramic tile, brick with mortar, etc.): 30% to 50%.
4. A thick nonporous wall: 50% to 90%.

#2 and #3 apply to most walls in residential homes. #4 is the case of condos in high rises or walls around bathrooms.

Again, these numbers are just ballpark, but you can use them to know how far the signal will reach when you place a Wi-Fi broadcaster at a specific spot in your home. A simple rule is that more walls equal worse coverage, and generally, a single wall will reduce the signal by approximately 30%.

That said, in real life, when all adverse elements are taken into account, and depending on the situation and where you stand from the broadcaster, we need to discount the theoretical ranges mentioned above between 40% and 90% to get a broadcaster’s realistic coverage.

So, what exactly can you expect a particular Wi-Fi router to cover? Let’s get into a bit more detail.

The practical calculation of a broadcaster’s Wi-Fi range and coverage

To get the best range, your devices should be at the same level—the same plane—as the Wi-Fi broadcaster.

Specifically, if you leave the router on the floor, then your devices should also be on the floor. If you hold your phone in your hand while standing, it’ll have a shorter range—it’s on another plane.

That’s why you should elevate your Wi-Fi router by putting it on a shelf or mounting it on the wall, slightly higher than other everyday objects like tables and desks. The objective is that you want to create the highest chance of having the lines of sight or the minimum objects between it and clients.

That said, on the same surface, in perfect condition, as mentioned above, a 5GHz broadcaster blankets a circle of 150 feet (46 m) in radius, which is π × 150² or approximately 70,000 ft² (≈ 6000 m²). That’s the best-case, impossible, 100% unrealistic scenario.

In real life, we don’t have a room that large and a clean environment.

In fact, pick any room of your home, place the router at the center, and within 10 or 15 feet (a few meters) from it, chances are there’s a wall in a direction. Behind that first wall, the signals are significantly reduced. After that, there will be more rooms and more walls that progressively block the already degraded/weakened signals.

Chances are you can’t place the broadcaster ideally at the center, to begin with, and most likely, not all devices are on the same optimal coverage plane.

Consequently, in a typical home with all the walls and interference accounted for, the realistic radius of a 5GHz Wi-Fi broadcaster’s coverage circle is reduced to 20 to 30 feet, which translates into an area of roughly 1200 ft² to 2800 ft² (263 m²) with the latter being the borderline-impossible max.

Now add about 30% more for the 2.4GHz band and reduce approximately 25% for the 6GHz band.

So, here’s the general realistic coverage of a Wi-Fi broadcaster’s band in the shape of a circle on the same surface level (plane) as the broadcaster itself:

• 2.4GHz: between 1600 ft² (150 m²) and 3000 ft² (300 m²)—this band is really slow, and at the end of the range, its data rates are hardly usable, especially when you have more than one device.
• 5.GHz: between 1200 ft² (112 m²) to 2800 ft²
• 6GHz: between 800ft² (74 m²) to 1800 ft² (167 m²)

In most cases, expect your real-world experience to be somewhere in between. It’s a good idea to be cautious on this front—I’d only count on the low ends. I’ve never experienced a broadcaster that can deliver 3000 ft² of coverage in a residential home.

Note that this coverage circle is not exactly round. The side with fewer obstacles (walls) has a more extended range, and the one with more walls will have a shorter range. This is why a bathroom generally gets the worst signals—those granite panels and fancy tiles don’t help.

The takeaway

Generally, inside a home, you will never be able to find a single Wi-Fi broadcaster with coverage of 3000 ft² (300 m²), even on the 2.4GHz band.

However, depending on the situation, 2500 ft² (≈ 230 m²) is possible. The key is to get the top-tier hardware and place it as close to the center of the desired coverage as possible, elevated from the ground.

While the said coverage is not a definite number—it’s not a guarantee—you can use it as a starting point when shopping for a new router or a mesh system. Or maybe it’s time to move to a more airy home.