News analysis · Technology & Standards
Avery Dennison’s active BLE labels target a different tracking problem from passive RFID
AD Visi was announced September 15 for ordering late in 2026. Continuous broadcasts and passive item counts should not be sold as the same kind of visibility.
What Avery Dennison announced
Avery Dennison’s September 15 release introduces the AD Visi line of active Bluetooth Low Energy labels for tracking time-critical or high-value shipments. The initial offer, which the company says will be available for order in late 2026, consists of AD Visi Way for location tracking and AD Visi Secure with an integrated tamper-evidence loop. The release names InPlay NanoBeacon chips and describes continuous broadcasting, location information, tamper alerts and condition monitoring as intended capabilities. It does not provide an independent deployment study or measured battery endurance under a stated beacon interval.
The announcement is easy to misclassify as ordinary RAIN UHF RFID because Avery Dennison also supplies UHF inlays. The company itself distinguishes active BLE, passive BLE and UHF RFID in its portfolio. Its claim that broadcasts avoid manual scanning does not mean a receiving network, location software or operational interpretation are unnecessary.
RFIDWire analysis
A passive UHF tag normally answers when a reader supplies radio energy. It is suited to identifying many items at a defined observation point or taking an inventory under appropriate read conditions. An active BLE label carries its own energy source and broadcasts; that can support repeated observations in a network of listening devices. These are different architectures. Neither gives a universally accurate location without the right infrastructure, coverage and data processing.
Define the question before choosing a label. For a carton, the operator may only need proof that it passed a receiving gate; a passive UHF read can be sufficient if the process has a reliable checkpoint. For a high-value consignment that must be tracked between checkpoints, more frequent broadcast observations may justify batteries, receiver deployment and monitoring. A tamper-evidence loop adds a signal to investigate; it is not proof by itself of who opened a shipment or whether an attack was impossible.
A practical comparison should map the journey into intervals: handoff, transit, storage and exception. For each interval, specify the required observation freshness, location granularity, battery service or disposal requirements, receiver coverage, false-alert rate and cost per shipment. If the network does not hear a label, does the software show “last observed,” or incorrectly imply “currently here”? That interface choice can matter more than the radio specification.
Questions and limits
How long do the labels broadcast under the intended interval and temperature? What infrastructure receives them across a real route? Does the tamper loop distinguish damage from deliberate access? Which data are collected during offline transit? What is the operating cost of replacing batteries or labels? What happens to the shipment record when a label is reused or removed?
The source is a manufacturer launch announcement dated September 15, not a September 28 product launch or a verified production deployment. The late-2026 initial order date and the absence of comparative field results should remain visible in procurement discussions.