A modern smart building has an intricate nervous system — your OT network. This network is responsible for nearly everything that makes a building efficient, comfortable, and secure. For years, OT networks have been growing, not just in scale, but in complexity and importance. But I don’t need to tell you that. It’s your work that forms the basis for this lookback.
As Optigo Networks continues to grow alongside our partners, we’ve been watching the data. And frankly, it’s telling some fascinating stories.
This is why we’re proud to launch our very first Optigo State of the Network Report. In this report, we’re surfacing the interesting and the indicative: data that reflects both the changes we’ve seen over the last year, but also the larger shifts in the industry, reflected in our customers metrics. Things like:
- What sort of changes are we seeing in network sizes and device counts?
- How is the sheer volume of data on these networks changing?
- What are the most popular devices people are grabbing to build the future… and which legacy workhorses are they refusing to let go of? (Yes, we’re looking at you, MS/TP!)
In the following pages, we’ll dive into these trends, share our insights, and explore what it all means for the future of smart buildings.
Optigo Networks
State of the
Network 2025
The Data Explosion
Total network traffic volume FY24 vs FY25
Protocol Distribution
MS/TP remains a critical component of modern networks.
Scale Context
We processed 1,120x more data than the entire English Wikipedia this year.
WIKIPEDIA SIZE~24.05 GB
OPTIGO TRAFFIC22,480 GB
Network Complexity
Average number of devices monitored per organization.
© 2025 Optigo Networks Inc. | Data Source: Aggregated Protocol Analysis & Global OT Network Health Metrics (Nov 2025)
Year Over Year Analysis
Growth &
Engagement
Data Volume (TB)
Traffic Processed
PCAP Files
Files Analyzed
New Networks
Annual Adds
New Users
Annual Adds
Top Active Users
Organizations with the highest engagement
© 2025 Optigo Networks Inc. | Data Source: User & Network Activity Logs Nov 2025
Performance Analysis
Network
Response Time
Network Composition
Breakdown of networks by device protocol type
Legacy MS/TP networks are still in the mix for the majority of network infrastructure, with most networks still a hybrid of MS/TP and IP.
“Pure” BACnet/IP-only networks now account for nearly one-third of the ecosystem.
Global Response Time
Distribution across ~42 Million analyzed links
Response Time by Protocol
Comparing IP/Ethernet (Blue) vs MS/TP (Orange)
This chart compares how many links fall into each response-time bucket for IP/Ethernet versus MS/TP, showing the distribution and relative volume across speeds.
Note: Vertical axis uses a logarithmic scale to visualize the massive difference in volume between IP and MS/TP traffic.
The Speed Standard
Nearly three-quarters of all analyzed network links respond in under 100ms.
Traffic Dominance
IP/Ethernet networks handle 48 times the volume of MS/TP networks.
Protocol Signal
Data confirms: IP networks are ~2x more likely to keep traffic in the ‘Fast Lane’ (<100ms).
© 2025 Optigo Networks Inc. | Data Source: Optigo Networks, Nov 2025
Traffic Analysis
Packet Type
Distribution
BACnet Traffic Breakdown
Distribution of ~24 Million analyzed packets
Heavy reliance on polling (ReadProperty) rather than event-driven updates.
High volume of discovery traffic suggests unstable or searching devices.
Non-standard BACnet traffic typically used for vendor-specific configuration.
Polling vs. COV
Only 5% of traffic is efficient Change of Value (COV) notifications, while 60% is polling. Shifting to COV could drastically reduce network load.
Writing Commands
WriteProperty commands make up less than 2% of traffic, confirming that OT networks are primarily read-heavy environments.
© 2025 Optigo Networks Inc. | Data Source: 22.4M Analyzed BACnet Packets
Ecosystem Landscape
Vendors &
Platforms
The “Big Players”
Top vendors by % of total monitored devices
Dominant leader (Alerton + Honeywell Inc.).
Strong global deployment base.
Rounding out the top three.
Who are the “Others”?
The 32% slice is made up of these key players (Ranked #11-20)
Top 10 Vendors by Device Count
Total devices detected on network
Category Insight
While HVAC controllers dominate the Top 10, the presence of Lutron (#11, Lighting), Eaton (#16, Power), and Danfoss (#10, Drives) confirms that modern OT networks are deeply integrated multi-system environments.
© 2025 Optigo Networks Inc. | Data Source: 2025 Device Inventory Analysis
Network Health & Troubleshooting
State of the
Network Health
Ecosystem Health Score
Distribution of health scores across 1,138 monitored nodes
Optimized systems with minimal diagnostic errors.
Functional but showing signs of degradation.
Severe issues requiring immediate attention.
Top 5 Diagnostic Issues
Most common failures detected by OptigoVN
John Attala, Optigo Networks’ Chief Growth Officer, Was Right.
Unacknowledged Requests is a top-tier offender, ranking #3 overall with 513 failures. This confirms that lost packets and communication breakdowns remain a persistent plague in OT networks.
Top Offender
The #1 issue, Error Messages (Programming), suggests that configuration errors—not just physical failures—are the leading cause of poor network health scores.
The Efficiency Dividend
Projected impact of automated diagnostics vs. manual troubleshooting
Total incidents across the Top 5 diagnostic categories.
Based on avg. 3 hours to manually identify & resolve complex network issues.
Equivalent service value at a conservative $250/hr billable rate.
*Estimates derived from standard industry service times for intermittent packet loss and configuration troubleshooting.
© 2025 Optigo Networks Inc. | Data Source: 2025 Device Inventory Analysis
Executive Summary
What 2025 Tells Us
About the Industry
This year marks the beginning of a new data-driven era for Optigo Networks. By establishing 2025 as our baseline year, we have uncovered three critical observations that define the current state of the OT network landscape.
Complexity is Scaling.
Networks aren’t just growing; they are becoming denser and louder. While new network adds continue, the data volume (+101%) and PCAP counts (+154%) are also growing.
The Hybrid Reality.
The transition to BACnet/IP is undeniable (32%), yet MS/TP remains a component in most backbones (61%). The industry is not “switching” so much as “layering.”
Critical Misses.
Network health is stagnating in the “Critical” zone (34%), driven by configuration errors like Unacknowledged Requests. The logical layer is struggling to keep up.
Looking Ahead to 2026
This report establishes the baseline metrics for device count, health scores, and protocol balance. Next year, we will measure the velocity of change against these 2025 pillars.
© 2025 Optigo Networks Inc. | State of the Network Report
Methods & Limitations
This report is based on aggregated, anonymized data from the OptigoVN platform as of November 2025. While it offers a unique and granular view into the state of operational technology (OT) networks, transparency about our dataset is key to interpreting these findings.
Data Scope
- Source: All data is derived exclusively from active OptigoVN users and networks. It does not include offline systems or networks monitored solely by third-party tools.
- Timeframe: The “2025” dataset includes traffic and activity logged from January 1, 2025, through November 15, 2025. Historical comparisons use full-year data from 2024 where available.
- Volume: Insights are drawn from the analysis of approximately 22.48 TB of network traffic and 1.1 million PCAP files across 2,008 distinct OT networks.
Limitations & Biases
- Vendor Bias: The “Market Share” analysis reflects the install base of Optigo customers, which may skew towards specific regions or industries (e.g., higher education, commercial real estate) where Optigo has a strong presence. It is a snapshot of our ecosystem, not necessarily the entire global market.
- Protocol Visibility: Response time metrics are calculated based on successful packet-to-packet exchanges. Extremely poor connections that result in total packet loss may be underrepresented in latency averages.
- Metric Precision: Some metrics, such as “manual hours saved,” are directional estimates based on industry-standard service times rather than direct time-tracking data from technicians.
