Summary
- The practical economic unit for Netmore is not a burst of radio traffic; it is a utility meter connection wrapped in radio planning, gateway access, data delivery, operations support, security practice and service-level accountability.
- Public evidence supports Netmore's contracted scale in water metering, including 65,000 meters for VA SYD, about 45,000 subscriptions in north-west Skane, 76,000 South West Water meters, up to 360,000 Yorkshire Water properties, a later Yorkshire Water programme for 1.3 million meter exchanges, and a Severn Trent programme for one million meters. The missing metric is per-meter gross margin after installation, gateways, field support and platform costs.
- The buyer's substitute is not just another LoRaWAN network. It can be a private utility network build, a cellular IoT plan, manual or drive-by meter reading, or delayed digitalisation. Netmore's case is strongest where the utility wants to transfer coverage, operations and project-integration burden rather than manage those tasks itself.
A utility is buying relief from a long obligation
Imagine a water utility deciding how to modernise a district of ageing meters. The paid unit looks small: one endpoint, a few readings, a battery expected to last for years, and a monthly or long-term connectivity charge. The burden is not small. Someone has to check whether the signal reaches below-ground boxes, place gateways, keep the network server running, track device status, explain gaps in the data, integrate with metering systems, manage installation partners, and remain accountable when a household, municipal engineer or regulator asks why a meter did not report.
That is the purchase Netmore is trying to sell. Its public water-utilities page says it offers per-device pricing and service-level commitments, with Metering-as-a-Service available at a monthly per-meter fee and with no up-front cost for utilities choosing that turnkey model: https://netmoregroup.com/utilities/water-utilities/. The page also names network design, RF planning, network deployment, meter provisioning, advanced metering infrastructure operations, real-time reporting on meter and sensor status, a 24/7/365 network operations centre, and 99.9%+ network and server uptime. The economics are therefore not the economics of a casual sensor gateway. They are the economics of taking a thin stream of readings and making it dependable enough for public infrastructure.
The obvious substitute is a private build. A utility could buy gateways, rent sites, hire radio planners, operate a LoRaWAN network server, integrate meter data, and carry the support burden itself. Another substitute is cellular IoT. 1NCE, for example, advertises an IoT Lifetime Flat with 500 MB, 250 SMS and ten years of service across more than 170 countries for a one-time fee, with no monthly costs in covered countries: https://www.1nce.com/en-eu/1nce-connect/pricing. That is a powerful benchmark for any buyer looking only at low-data connectivity. A third substitute is the old operating pattern: periodic manual or drive-by readings, fewer data points, slower leak detection and more customer-estimation friction. A fourth substitute is delay, which is often attractive to public bodies because the meter still turns and the pipes still flow.
Netmore's pitch only makes sense if the avoided burden is worth more than the radio byte. A utility meter sends tiny data flows. But the value of a meter connection rises when the endpoint is hard to reach, the asset is expected to live through more than one procurement cycle, field visits are expensive, leakage and water efficiency have regulatory or political salience, and management needs data that can be trusted enough to change operations. In the first public evidence layer, Netmore can prove contract scope and operating obligations. It cannot prove, from public information alone, that each connection earns an attractive margin. The missing private unit metric is contribution margin per active meter connection after hardware logistics, gateways, installation support, network operations, customer support, platform hosting and any service credits.
Per-meter timing is the first test. A headline contract can describe hundreds of thousands or millions of meters, but a recurring connection is earned only when an endpoint is installed, provisioned, accepted into the network, and sending data in a way the utility can use. That makes the ramp more like civil infrastructure than software licensing. Procurement approval may arrive in one quarter; meter exchange, gateway placement and data integration may take many more. The strongest version of the business converts a signed framework into a growing base of active billable endpoints. The weaker version leaves the company carrying programme costs before enough meters are live.
The acceptance step is also economic, not ceremonial. A meter that passes a bench test but fails in a basement, boundary box or rural property is not a dependable revenue unit. Field coverage verification decides whether the theoretical connection becomes a working asset. The work can include drive testing, propagation modelling, gateway relocation, indoor coverage remedies, antenna choices, signal-margin checks, and repeated comparison between expected and actual packet delivery. Netmore's water-utilities page names RF planning, deployment and service-level commitments because those are not optional extras: https://netmoregroup.com/utilities/water-utilities/. They are the bridge between a low-cost radio theory and a public service that a utility can trust.
That bridge has maintenance attached. Gateways need sites, power, backhaul, firmware attention, physical access and fault response. A roof landlord may change terms. A mobile backhaul link may fail. A gateway that works in summer may expose a coverage gap when meter pits flood, vegetation changes, construction interferes with a path or a battery weakens at the edge of the link budget. The per-meter fee therefore has to pay for a distributed maintenance obligation as well as for the abstract right to transmit. This is why Netmore's economics should be judged against avoided total cost for the utility, not against a raw connectivity tariff alone.
That missing metric matters because the strongest public contracts also contain the seeds of cost. Yorkshire Water selected Netmore in 2024 as lead partner to exchange 1.3 million water meters, subject at the time to Ofwat's final determination, with an initial term of five years plus data services for installed meters up to 2045: https://netmoregroup.com/news/yorkshire-water-selects-netmore-to-exchange-1-3-million-meters-in-tender-for-one-of-europes-largest-lorawan-water-metering-projects/. The same release says Netmore will lead a group of suppliers to deliver end-to-end service, including delivery, installation, commissioning and maintenance of connected smart meters, and will deploy and densify network coverage to meet service levels. This is attractive because it points to a durable account. It is risky because long-duration service is labour, not only software.
The evidence begins with metering, not with brand scale
Netmore is best read through its utility metering contracts rather than through broad Internet-of-Things language. The current public identity page says the group was founded in Stockholm in 2010, lists IoT and telecom as the main industry, names Ove Anebygd as chief executive, says the main market is global, and gives current company information as Netmore Holding AB with corporate ID 559458-4996: https://netmoregroup.com/about-netmore/. The directory entity here is Netmore Group AB, the listed Swedish company name that appears in earlier disclosures and in the historical public market record. The operating brand continues to present itself as Netmore Group or Netmore, while 2026 public pages also say it is backed by Nordic infrastructure investor Polar Structure.
That boundary is important. Netmore Group AB was once a listed company on Nasdaq First North Growth Market. In January 2024, Polar Intelligent Solutions AB, Buildroid AB, Kapitopia AB and Ove Anebygd agreed to combine their Netmore shares into a holding company that would hold about 94% of the outstanding shares and about 96% of the votes: https://netmoregroup.com/news/majoritetsaktieagare-i-netmore-har-ingatt-avtal-om-forvarv-av-over-90-procent-av-aktierna-i-netmore-group-ab-publ-och-avser-att-pakalla-tvangsinlosen/. In February 2024, the majority owner called for squeeze-out of the remaining shares and Netmore applied for delisting: https://netmoregroup.com/news/majoritetsaktieagare-pakallar-tvangsinlosen-och-netmore-group-ansoker-om-avnotering/. Nasdaq Stockholm then approved the delisting application and set the last trading day for the B shares as 23 February 2024: https://netmoregroup.com/news/netmore-groups-ansokan-om-avnotering-godkand-sista-dag-for-handel-blir-den-23-februari-2024/.
For a reader judging the company in 2026, that sequence changes the evidence base. Before delisting, quarterly reports and stock-market disclosures offered a public window into revenue, backlog and operating losses or gains. After delisting, the richer public facts are operational announcements, product pages, customer quotes and acquisition releases. That does not make the business weaker or stronger by itself. It means the article has to separate contracted meter counts from economics. Meter counts can be public. Margin, renewal rates, service-credit exposure and customer concentration are mostly private.
The older Swedish releases explain the model more plainly than many later global-marketing pages. In October 2020, Netmore said it would deliver connectivity for 65,000 water meters for Dahl Sverige and VA SYD, with recurring revenues beginning successively from the fourth quarter: https://netmoregroup.com/news/netmore-far-genombrottsorder-inom-iot-levererar-uppkoppling-till-65-000-vattenmatare-for-dahl-sverige-va-syd/. The release quoted VA SYD on encryption from sensors to its own server halls and said no third-party supplier would be able to store or see meter reading data. In July 2021, Netmore announced about 45,000 IoT subscriptions for smart water meters in north-west Skane and described the model directly: each connected device gets a subscription that generates monthly revenue, and Netmore's recurring revenue grows as the devices are installed: https://netmoregroup.com/news/netmore-far-order-pa-45-000-iot-abonnemang-nar-smarta-vattenmatare-installeras-i-nordvastra-skane/.
Those two Swedish references matter because they avoid the vagueness of "digital transformation". They show a municipal water use case, a subscription-shaped revenue model, and a security expectation. They also show why the paid unit is patient. Revenue ramps when meters are physically installed, not when a contract headline is published. If deployment is slow, revenue recognition is slow. If coverage problems appear after installation, the operator has to solve them in the field. If a municipality later adds more sensors, Netmore benefits from network reuse. The same infrastructure can carry leak sensors, pressure readings, well monitoring or other municipal telemetry, but only if the first meter use case earns trust.
The UK deals made Netmore a water-utility operator, not just a Swedish IoT supplier
The UK water contracts are the clearest public evidence that Netmore's metering thesis has moved beyond pilot scale. In October 2022, Yorkshire Water chose Netmore for smart water metering frameworks covering up to 360,000 households, with a stated order value of up to GBP47 million, about SEK583 million at the release's conversion, over a three-year period with possible extension and subsequent service provision: https://netmoregroup.com/news/yorkshire-water-chooses-netmores-solutions-for-smart-water-metering-framework-up-to-360k-properties-covered-in-breakthrough-deal-worth-up-to-47-million/. The agreement covered delivery, installation, commissioning and maintenance of connected meters, plus LoRaWAN network rollout and Data-as-a-Service. Yorkshire Water's quoted manager said the evaluation considered capability and service levels for connecting smart water meters.
That wording says the buyer was not merely choosing a radio protocol. It was choosing who could stand behind a measured flow of consumption data. The same release said the data contract was meant to provide secure, reliable and accurate flow data to help with leakage, water efficiency, customer experience and operational carbon emissions. In economic terms, Netmore was selling an avoided in-house programme: not just a signal, but the practical burden of achieving coverage, installing equipment, delivering usable data and staying present during the operating period.
The South West Water deal added a second UK reference. In April 2023, Netmore said it had won a contract, as part of procurement awarded to Diehl Metering, to provide connectivity for 76,000 smart water meters in households and commercial properties around South West England: https://netmoregroup.com/news/netmore-strikes-iot-deal-in-the-uk-providing-connectivity-to-76000-water-meters-for-diehl-metering-and-south-west-water/. Netmore said it would build and manage the LoRaWAN network required for reliable data collection, and that each connected meter would generate monthly income over the five-year initial period. The release also said the connected meters had an estimated life considerably longer than the initial contract, leaving potential for additional income if the contract were extended.
That is the Netmore model in miniature: the utility buys an operating result; Netmore earns the connection over time; the contract is only attractive if churn is low and support costs do not eat the annuity. A meter with a twenty-year physical life is not automatically a twenty-year revenue stream. It becomes one if the service remains reliable, the data remains useful, the contract renews or expands, and a substitute does not undercut the economics. Cellular operators can compete on wide-area coverage. Meter vendors can bundle communications. Utilities can self-build. Netmore's defence is specialisation: it can focus gateway placement, LoRaWAN network operation, meter data pathways and water-utility support around one recurring use case.
The larger 2024 Yorkshire Water programme made the scale question sharper. Netmore's release said the initial smart metering programme launched in 2022 had helped Yorkshire Water deliver the first 500,000 litres of leakage reduction by identifying leakage on customers' pipes, and that the later meter exchange programme would cover 1.3 million meters, with data services for installed meters up to 2045: https://netmoregroup.com/news/yorkshire-water-selects-netmore-to-exchange-1-3-million-meters-in-tender-for-one-of-europes-largest-lorawan-water-metering-projects/. The same release named Morrison Water Services for planning and customer-facing exchange work, and Itron and Diehl Metering as meter providers. That supplier list is a clue about Netmore's role. Netmore is not merely a box seller; it coordinates a delivery chain in which meters, installation, customer scheduling, coverage and data services have to line up.
In September 2025, Netmore announced that Severn Trent had selected it to deploy and manage network services for one million smart meters across more than 20 counties, with the AMP8 contract for AMI water meters on behalf of Severn Trent and Hafren Dyfrdwy having had an estimated value of GBP200 million when it went to tender: https://netmoregroup.com/news/severn-trent-selects-netmore-to-deploy-and-manage-advanced-metering-infrastructure-network-for-one-million-smart-water-meters/. Netmore said it would deploy and manage a dual LoRaWAN and NB-IoT network, lead a group of suppliers, and use the Netmore Connect platform for network and device management and data delivery into Severn Trent's meter data management system. The release named Itron and Diehl as LoRaWAN meter providers and Vodafone IoT as the NB-IoT connectivity supplier.
The dual-network design is significant. It recognises that a utility buyer cares more about working coverage than about ideological purity. Some meters will suit LoRaWAN. Some may require NB-IoT. Some sites will be awkward. The commercial promise is not that one wireless technology wins everywhere. It is that Netmore can manage the practical mix, make data arrive, and keep the operational burden away from the utility. That makes the company more comparable to a specialist utility network operator than to a generic app-platform vendor.
NB-IoT changes the substitution question because it gives the buyer a route through mobile-operator infrastructure rather than a purpose-built LoRaWAN footprint. It can be attractive where licensed spectrum, operator service processes and existing cellular coverage reduce local deployment work. It can also be less attractive where module cost, power budget, indoor or below-ground reach, roaming terms, data-plan structure or battery-life assumptions do not fit the meter estate. LoRaWAN's advantage is not that it always wins; it is that it can be engineered for small packets, long battery life and utility-owned service logic. NB-IoT's advantage is not that it is universal; it is that a mobile network can sometimes remove the need for a separate gateway layer.
The Severn Trent architecture therefore signals a more mature buying pattern. A large water utility may want a supplier that can decide where each technology belongs, rather than defend a single technology everywhere. That can help Netmore if the company is paid for orchestration, design, device management and data delivery. It can hurt Netmore if the economics shift toward commodity connectivity supplied by larger upstream carriers. In that scenario, Netmore must retain value in integration, service assurance, reporting and utility-specific accountability, not in the radio access layer alone.
Supplier dependence sits inside that same issue. Netmore's public UK releases name meter manufacturers, installation partners and, in the Severn Trent programme, Vodafone IoT as the NB-IoT supplier. That is normal for a utility programme of this size, but it means execution is shared across a chain. Meter availability, firmware quality, battery performance, installer productivity, site access, gateway hardware, SIM or cellular terms, platform interfaces and customer communications can all affect the service the utility experiences. Netmore may lead the programme, but it does not control every upstream variable. The commercial skill is to absorb enough complexity to make the buyer's life easier without absorbing so much unmanaged risk that the margin disappears.
The demand side is a water-resource problem
The meter connection earns more attention when water-resource planning becomes harder. Yorkshire Water's Water Resources Management Plan page says the company produces a WRMP every five years, that regulators including the Environment Agency, Ofwat and the Drinking Water Inspectorate set requirements, and that the 2024 plan identified significant risks to future supply-demand balance from climate change, population growth, reductions in supply to protect the environment and the loss of a water transfer: https://www.yorkshirewater.com/about-us/resources/water-resources-management-plan/. In the final WRMP24 technical document, Yorkshire Water describes a twin-track approach: demand reduction and increasing available supply. The document names smart metering, leakage reduction and customer water efficiency as part of demand reduction: https://www.yorkshirewater.com/media/qk4pwpjh/yorkshire-water-final-wrmp24-technical-document-public.pdf.
That is why a low-ARPU meter connection can matter. It is not a luxury data feed. It is an input into a utility's strategy for finding customer-side leaks, understanding demand patterns, reducing manual estimation and using water more efficiently. A manual meter reader can produce a periodic bill. An automated meter can produce patterns. The pattern is where the operational value begins: continuous flow can indicate leakage; abnormal use can trigger customer outreach; district-level data can shape pressure management; more frequent readings can make billing and move-in or move-out processes less clumsy.
The public evidence should not be stretched. A meter does not fix a pipe by itself. A radio network does not reduce leakage unless the utility has processes to interpret readings, contact customers, schedule repairs and change incentives. The Yorkshire Water WRMP supports the strategic role of smart metering; it does not prove Netmore's private revenue or profit. Netmore's announcements support its selected role in named programmes; they do not prove that every contracted meter has been installed or that each unit is profitable. The honest judgement is narrower and still important: water utilities have a real planning reason to buy dependable AMI services, and Netmore has public references where utilities have selected it for that role.
The same logic applies to Severn Trent. Netmore's Severn Trent release says programme goals include one million smart meters by the end of AMP8, a 16% reduction in household water leakage by 2030, a 7% reduction in household water use by 2030 against the 2024-25 baseline, and a 3.5% reduction in business water use by 2030: https://netmoregroup.com/news/severn-trent-selects-netmore-to-deploy-and-manage-advanced-metering-infrastructure-network-for-one-million-smart-water-meters/. Those are not Netmore's targets alone. They are utility programme goals. For Netmore, they are evidence that buyers are commissioning meter connectivity because it sits inside broader resource and regulatory commitments.
This is also why the business is exposed to public-sector continuity. If utility investment cycles slip, if regulator determinations alter allowance timing, if a political debate delays smart metering, or if a customer programme runs into household access problems, Netmore's revenue ramp can slow. Water infrastructure is essential, but essential infrastructure is not always fast. A five-year meter exchange programme can create a durable backlog; it can also create a long period in which working capital, partner management and field execution matter as much as sales.
LoRaWAN fits the meter, but fit does not remove execution risk
LoRaWAN is a credible technology for this work because meters are low-data, power-constrained and often awkwardly placed. The LoRa Alliance describes LoRaWAN as a low-power wide-area networking specification for connecting battery-operated things to the internet across regional, national or global networks, with bidirectional communication and end-to-end security among the targeted requirements: https://lora-alliance.org/about-lorawan/. The same page says LoRaWAN operates in unlicensed radio-frequency bands, is known for long range and low power consumption, and can connect many devices to a single network.
That is exactly why it suits water meters. A water meter may sit in a boundary box, basement, cupboard or street chamber. It may need to report small packets for years without mains power. It does not need video bandwidth. It needs coverage, battery life, low module cost and reliable delivery. A Netmore-hosted report by Transforma Insights argues that LPWA technologies are generally favoured for smart water meters because meters are often separate from power supply, expected to operate for 20 years or more, generate small data volumes and may lack conventional cellular coverage: https://netmoregroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Netmore_TransformaInsights_AMI_Report.pdf. Because that report is hosted by Netmore, it should be treated as industry context rather than independent proof of Netmore's performance. Its technical framing is nevertheless consistent with the buyer problem.
The radio story has a cost side. LoRaWAN's licence-exempt spectrum reduces spectrum fees and permits private or public network models. But licence-exempt does not mean obligation-free. Gateways need power, backhaul, sites, maintenance and monitoring. Dense urban areas, rural valleys, basements and meter pits may all behave differently. Netmore's water-utilities page says it can establish network coverage using radio towers, rooftops, commercial partnerships, indoor gateways and client assets, and that network capacity, redundancy and scalability must be planned to minimise outages: https://netmoregroup.com/utilities/water-utilities/. Those lines are important because they admit the hidden cost: someone must do the radio engineering.
Gateway placement is where the business becomes local. A national or regional map can show likely coverage, but a water utility pays for performance at individual meter locations. The operator has to decide how many gateways are needed, where they can be placed legally and cheaply, how each site is powered and backhauled, what redundancy is needed, and how future building work or vegetation may change coverage. A gateway placed too sparsely can create missed readings and repeated field visits. A gateway layer placed too densely can consume the savings that made the managed network attractive. The economic answer is not maximum coverage at any cost; it is reliable enough coverage at a cost the per-meter annuity can carry.
Battery life is the paired constraint. Smart water meters are usually expected to work for many years without mains power. The radio plan, reporting frequency, retransmission rate, meter firmware and installation quality all affect battery drain. A meter that needs repeated transmissions from a poor signal location may impose a future replacement or maintenance cost. A device that sleeps efficiently and wakes predictably may keep the revenue stream clean for longer. Public releases name the life of connected meters as extending well beyond some initial contract periods, but they do not disclose failure curves, battery replacement rates or the cost of recovering weak endpoints. Those missing facts matter because reliability and retention are inseparable: a utility renews when data is steady and field surprises are contained.
This also explains why LoRaWAN security and operations cannot be separated from radio planning. Poor key management, unreliable provisioning, duplicate records, failed joins or weak handover between installer and operator can turn a technically suitable network into a service problem. A utility does not want a debate about where the fault sits among meter vendor, installer, network server and analytics provider. It wants a clean answer and a restoration path. Netmore's advantage grows if it can shorten that fault chain and show the utility a single operational picture across devices, gateways and data delivery.
Security also cannot be reduced to a slogan. The LoRa Alliance says LoRaWAN is secure by design, with mandatory authentication and encryption, but that implementation matters; it notes risks if keys are not protected, not randomised across devices or if nonces are reused: https://lora-alliance.org/resource_hub/lorawan-is-secure-but-implementation-matters/. For water utilities, that distinction is material. Meter readings are not just anonymous telemetry. They can reveal household occupancy patterns, business activity and leak conditions. VA SYD's 2020 quote in Netmore's release about encryption from sensors to VA SYD's own server halls shows that public utility buyers can care about data handling details, not only about coverage: https://netmoregroup.com/news/netmore-far-genombrottsorder-inom-iot-levererar-uppkoppling-till-65-000-vattenmatare-for-dahl-sverige-va-syd/.
The operating surface also reaches into ordinary internet infrastructure. A RIPE public database full-text search for Netmore returns assigned PA records including Netmore-UK, records naming Netmore Group AB addresses, and Netmore Ireland contact roles: https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/api/rest/fulltextsearch/select?format=json&q=Netmore. These rows do not prove the size or quality of Netmore's LoRaWAN network; LoRaWAN gateways and meter endpoints are not the same thing as public IP prefixes. They do show that the company has public connectivity-related records around its operations. In this article those technical records are evidence only, not companies, customers or assets to be counted as separate market positions.
The operating company has shifted toward utility IoT
Netmore's strategic focus became clearer when it sold a different IoT business. In January 2023, Netmore divested Netmore M2M AB to Melita for an initial cash purchase price of EUR1.75 million plus up to EUR2.6 million in additional consideration, and said the sale was another step in its strategic focus on its fastest growing business area, IoT/LoRaWAN: https://netmoregroup.com/news/netmore-divests-m2m-business-to-telecom-and-iot-operator-melita/. The divested subsidiary had more than 300 customers in over 30 countries and reduced Netmore's quarterly sales by about SEK1.1 million, according to the release. That divestment made Netmore less like a broad SIM-connectivity reseller and more like a specialist LPWAN infrastructure and platform operator.
The company has since tried to widen the platform layer. Netmore's Platform-as-a-Service page says its platform includes network diagnostics, device management, network planning, billing and customer management, and is designed by an LPWAN operator to support millions of devices and demanding SLA requirements: https://netmoregroup.com/lorawan-platform-as-a-service/. It says the platform is housed in a high-availability ISO27001 certified data centre and exports sensor data through REST API, MQTT and SocketIO for integration with third-party systems. The page also says more than 200 cities and municipalities across Europe have adopted the platform, taking ownership of individual networks. That is a claim from the company, but it clarifies what Netmore thinks its repeatable asset is: a managed operating stack, not only gateway placement.
In September 2025, Netmore acquired Arson Metering, a Spanish remote meter-reading and smart-management specialist for water and gas networks: https://netmoregroup.com/news/netmore-acquires-arson-metering-water-gas-utilities/. The release says Arson had deployments across more than 200 municipalities in Spain, Italy, France and Greece, managed more than 500,000 water and gas meters, and had a backlog of about 350,000 meters. It also names a Metering Control Centre and AquaCity and GasCity platforms. For Netmore, Arson fills a gap between network connection and utility workflow. A meter connection is more valuable when the operator can help detect anomalies, diagnose meter or network issues and support installation partners.
In January 2026, Netmore announced the acquisition of Actility, describing the combined footprint as more than 14 million contracted IoT devices across Netmore and Actility ThingPark-powered networks, deployments across more than 100 countries, and partnerships with more than 50 LoRaWAN network operators: https://netmoregroup.com/news/netmore-acquires-actility-to-lead-global-massive-iot-transformation/. The release says Actility was one of the original authors of the LoRaWAN specification and a founding member of the LoRa Alliance. It also lists capabilities relevant to utility operations, including DLMS over LoRaWAN, relay functionality for hard-to-reach locations, roaming through ThingPark Exchange, and firmware-update tools.
The Actility deal changes Netmore's ceiling and its integration risk. On the ceiling side, it gives Netmore platform depth, ecosystem reach and a larger installed or contracted device base. On the risk side, it adds a French technology company, a subsidiary in Abeeway, global operator relationships and product lines outside the water-meter core. The company can become a broader LPWAN platform consolidator. Or it can become distracted by breadth when the most measurable value still lies in the patient, local work of utility deployments.
Competition is a stack, not one rival
Netmore's competition is not a single company. It is a stack of alternatives. At the connectivity layer, cellular IoT providers such as 1NCE offer public, predictable low-data plans that can be attractive where coverage, power and module cost work for the application: https://www.1nce.com/en-eu/1nce-connect/pricing. At the utility-metre layer, suppliers such as Itron and Diehl appear in Netmore's own UK releases as meter providers, not only as ecosystem partners. At the network-infrastructure layer, tower companies, mobile operators, local authorities, private-network integrators and utilities themselves can all play some part. At the software layer, meter data management systems and analytics providers can capture part of the value that raw readings create.
That stack explains why Netmore's best position is not "we have LoRaWAN". LoRaWAN is an open ecosystem. The stronger position is: we can design, deploy and operate a water-utility AMI communications layer at scale; we can manage devices; we can support service levels; we can work with meter vendors; we can provide platform integration; and we can keep improving coverage for hard-to-reach endpoints. That is harder to copy than a tariff sheet, but it is also harder to execute than software alone.
The Severn Trent release is instructive because it includes both LoRaWAN and NB-IoT. If a utility chooses a mixed architecture, Netmore must prove that its value is orchestration and operation, not only owning one radio lane. Vodafone IoT is named as the NB-IoT connectivity supplier in that programme: https://netmoregroup.com/news/severn-trent-selects-netmore-to-deploy-and-manage-advanced-metering-infrastructure-network-for-one-million-smart-water-meters/. That makes Netmore both a specialist and a coordinator. The risk is that a powerful mobile operator, meter vendor or systems integrator could compress Netmore's margin if the buyer sees connectivity as a commodity. The opportunity is that mixed deployments increase the need for someone to manage complexity.
There is also a private-build competitor. The Transforma report states that utilities adopting LoRaWAN-connected smart water metering must decide whether to build a private LoRaWAN network or use a public LoRaWAN network as a service: https://netmoregroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Netmore_TransformaInsights_AMI_Report.pdf. For a large utility with engineering depth and long asset horizons, building privately can be rational. It may give more control over data, sites and operational priorities. Netmore must show that the managed-service route is cheaper in total cost, faster to deploy, less risky, or more adaptable across regions and use cases.
Manual reading and delayed digitalisation are quieter competitors. They are not technically elegant, but they are institutionally familiar. Many public infrastructure organisations prefer incremental change because field access, customer communication and billing transitions can be painful. Netmore's operating burden is therefore partly educational. It must convince buyers that the data stream will change decisions enough to justify the disruption. The case is strongest when the utility already has leakage, demand-management or customer-service targets that make the old method insufficient.
The cost base is physical before it is digital
Netmore's cost base has three layers. The first is physical deployment: gateways, site access, backhaul, meter communications devices, installation coordination, field visits and network densification. The second is operations: network servers, device management, support teams, monitoring, incident response, security practice, integration with customer systems and reporting. The third is business development and procurement: long utility sales cycles, bid costs, partner management, legal review and public-sector documentation.
The water-utilities page is candid about this breadth. It lists hardware selection, procurement and provisioning; network deployment and meter installation; RF planning and coverage analysis; capacity, redundancy and scalability planning; meter provisioning; real-time reporting; and 24/7/365 operations: https://netmoregroup.com/utilities/water-utilities/. Those activities are why the buyer may pay Netmore. They are also why revenue is not pure gross margin. Every service-level promise has a cost. Every difficult meter location converts a spreadsheet connection into a field problem.
Installation labour is one of the least glamorous but most important variables. A water-meter exchange may require appointments, access to homes or boundary boxes, traffic management, customer notices, failed visits, remediation work, installer training and reconciliation between physical serial numbers and digital records. If a meter is installed but not correctly commissioned, the network may carry a problem that only becomes visible when the utility expects data. If a household cannot be reached, the revenue timing for that endpoint slips. Netmore's role differs by contract, but its public releases show that installation and commissioning sit close to its service promise in several UK programmes.
Procurement risk follows the same physical reality. Water utilities are regulated, scrutinised and politically visible. A bid can be won on service quality and total programme capability, but the work still has to fit regulatory allowance cycles, tender rules, customer communications and affordability pressure. The 2024 Yorkshire Water release noted that the award was subject to Ofwat's final determination at the time: https://netmoregroup.com/news/yorkshire-water-selects-netmore-to-exchange-1-3-million-meters-in-tender-for-one-of-europes-largest-lorawan-water-metering-projects/. That reminder matters. A selected supplier may have a strong commercial position before revenue arrives, but public-service procurement can still alter timing, scope or pace.
Public-service continuity also changes the support standard. A failed consumer gadget can be replaced or ignored. A failed water-meter network can affect leakage detection, billing confidence, customer complaints, regulatory reporting and demand-management plans. The tolerance for unexplained outages should be lower when the data feed supports essential infrastructure. Netmore's 24/7/365 operations claim is therefore not a marketing flourish; it is a clue about the labour and systems needed to be credible to utility buyers. Continuity is part of the product.
The good version of the model has operating leverage. Once a regional network is deployed and monitored, additional sensors or meters can ride on the same infrastructure. A municipality that begins with water meters may add pressure sensors, well monitoring, rain gauges, environmental sensors or building telemetry. The 2020 VA SYD announcement explicitly said the new communications infrastructure would be able to handle many other sensors and equipment in the same geographic area, beyond water meters: https://netmoregroup.com/news/netmore-far-genombrottsorder-inom-iot-levererar-uppkoppling-till-65-000-vattenmatare-for-dahl-sverige-va-syd/. That is the local-network option value in Netmore's model.
The bad version has negative operating leverage. If every new customer needs bespoke coverage, custom integration, difficult installation sequencing and high-touch support, the company can win impressive headlines while absorbing too much cost. Utility projects are not SaaS sign-ups. They involve streets, contractors, household access, public complaints, water-company billing systems and long-term accountability. Netmore's unit economics therefore depend less on headline device counts than on the ratio of active, billing devices to field and support burden.
The Actility acquisition may improve this ratio if it gives Netmore better tooling, relay support, roaming and firmware-update capabilities for large fleets. It may worsen the ratio if integration complexity, product overlap or global sales dispersion absorb management attention. The public release emphasises technology and ecosystem advantages, including LoRaWAN relay for challenging water-meter environments and firmware update tools: https://netmoregroup.com/news/netmore-acquires-actility-to-lead-global-massive-iot-transformation/. The proof will be whether those features lower deployment and operating cost per meter, not whether they read well in an acquisition announcement.
Customer dependence is a strength until it becomes concentration
Water utilities are attractive customers because their infrastructure needs are durable. People will keep using water. Regulators will keep asking for leakage reduction, demand planning and customer-service improvements. A meter programme can last years, and data services can extend beyond the installation phase. Yorkshire Water's 1.3 million-meter release says data services for installed meters run up to 2045: https://netmoregroup.com/news/yorkshire-water-selects-netmore-to-exchange-1-3-million-meters-in-tender-for-one-of-europes-largest-lorawan-water-metering-projects/. That kind of duration is rare in ordinary enterprise IoT.
The same durability creates concentration risk. A handful of large water programmes can dominate public perception and perhaps revenue. If one programme slows, changes supplier mix or compresses prices, the effect could be meaningful. Public releases do not give enough information to calculate the share of revenue from Yorkshire Water, Severn Trent, South West Water, VA SYD, Arson customers or Actility platform customers. That is a central evidence gap after delisting. Contracted device counts tell us scale. They do not tell us dependence.
The geographic pattern is also mixed. Netmore began in Sweden, expanded in the UK and Ireland, acquired a Spanish metering specialist, and bought a French LoRaWAN platform company. Its current careers page says it operates in over 17 countries, connects millions of devices and supports critical infrastructure and large-scale IoT deployments: https://netmoregroup.com/careers/. The January 2026 Actility release says Netmore operates in 18 countries and is backed by Polar Structure: https://netmoregroup.com/news/netmore-acquires-actility-to-lead-global-massive-iot-transformation/. That footprint diversifies opportunity but increases operating complexity. Utilities are local. Radio conditions, procurement rules, data-handling expectations and installation labour markets vary.
There is an implicit financing question as well. Infrastructure-like revenue often needs infrastructure-like patience. Gateways and deployment costs come before long annuities. Public ownership can dislike that delay; private infrastructure backing may tolerate it better if the long-term cash flows are credible. Polar Structure's backing may therefore fit the business model. But private ownership also reduces public visibility. Readers can see contracts and acquisitions. They cannot see consolidated leverage, cash burn, covenant pressure, working-capital timing or per-meter contribution margin.
Market signals are small, but they point to specialist visibility
Unofficial and semi-official market signals should be kept in their place. Netmore's X profile describes the company as "Ecosystems for IoT" and, in the public profile metadata retrieved in July 2026, showed 370 posts, 194 followers and a link to netmoregroup.com: https://x.com/netmore_ab. That is not evidence of customer demand. It is a weak visibility signal: Netmore's social reach on that channel is modest relative to the scale implied by its utility contracts. In utility infrastructure, that may not matter much. Procurement teams do not usually choose meter-network partners because of public social media reach. Still, it suggests Netmore's public brand is more specialist than mass-market.
The careers page is a stronger labour-market signal. It emphasises network operators, utilities, properties and enterprises, and says the company supports critical infrastructure and large-scale IoT deployments: https://netmoregroup.com/careers/. That language matches the water-utility thesis. The company is not hiring around consumer internet growth or app distribution. It is presenting itself as an infrastructure and operations employer. The signal is bounded because a careers page is controlled by the company and does not show hiring velocity, retention or employee sentiment.
The absence of easily accessible independent reviews is itself informative. The public research surface is dominated by company announcements, customer quotes embedded in those announcements, regulator/utility planning documents, LoRaWAN standards bodies and specialist industry material. That is typical for utility infrastructure suppliers. The best evidence is not forum chatter; it is contract scope, procurement context, long-term service commitments and whether the meters keep reporting after installation. Public chatter can raise watchpoints, but it cannot substitute for deployment data.
The retention proof is still mostly private
The biggest open question is not whether water utilities can use meter data. They can. The open question is whether Netmore can keep enough of the economic value after the first deployment wave. A utility may choose Netmore because it wants one accountable delivery structure, but renewal behaviour will depend on measured experience: reading success, fault response, integration quality, customer complaints, battery outcomes, support cost and whether the service helped the utility act on leakage or demand signals. A procurement win proves selection. Retention proves usefulness.
This is where per-meter revenue can become either infrastructure income or a fragile annuity. If installed meters keep reporting and the utility builds operational routines around that data, the switching cost rises. Replacing the communications layer would then risk data gaps, integration work, customer disruption and new procurement costs. If readings are unreliable, if too many meters require repeat visits, if battery performance disappoints, or if the data does not change utility operations, the buyer can reopen the stack. The meter itself may remain in the ground, but Netmore's share of the service value can be challenged.
The public record gives partial evidence of confidence. Yorkshire Water moved from an earlier smart-metering framework covering up to 360,000 properties to a later 1.3 million-meter exchange programme in which Netmore was named lead partner: https://netmoregroup.com/news/yorkshire-water-chooses-netmores-solutions-for-smart-water-metering-framework-up-to-360k-properties-covered-in-breakthrough-deal-worth-up-to-47-million/ and https://netmoregroup.com/news/yorkshire-water-selects-netmore-to-exchange-1-3-million-meters-in-tender-for-one-of-europes-largest-lorawan-water-metering-projects/. That sequence is a meaningful positive signal. It suggests at least one large buyer was willing to keep moving with the company after an initial programme. It is not enough, however, to infer full fleet performance, final installed counts, margin or lifetime retention.
Reliability evidence is similarly incomplete. Netmore publishes service-level language and uptime claims on its water-utilities page, and it cites network operations and device reporting capabilities: https://netmoregroup.com/utilities/water-utilities/. Those claims tell readers what the company offers. They do not disclose packet success rates by meter environment, mean time to repair, outage history, percentage of meters requiring repeat field work, or how many gateways must be added after initial modelling. Those metrics would be more useful than another broad claim about digital transformation because they would show the cost of making each meter boringly reliable.
The final evidence gap is retention across technology substitution. A utility that starts with LoRaWAN may later add NB-IoT, private network capacity, meter-vendor services or analytics software from another supplier. Netmore's Severn Trent role shows it can participate in a mixed LoRaWAN and NB-IoT design, which is encouraging. But the company still has to prove that it can remain the trusted operating layer when multiple upstream suppliers are present. The stronger Netmore becomes at managing that mixed estate, the less exposed it is to any single radio technology. The weaker that orchestration becomes, the easier it is for a buyer to treat communications as a replaceable line item.
What would change the judgement
The positive case for Netmore is coherent. Water utilities need better meter data. LoRaWAN fits many water-meter constraints. Netmore has references in Sweden and the UK, including large named utilities. Its product pages describe the operational work that buyers need to outsource. Its acquisitions of Arson Metering and Actility add workflow and platform depth. Its private infrastructure backing may suit a long-horizon service model. The company's best business is therefore not selling connectivity as a commodity. It is turning low-data meter connections into dependable utility infrastructure.
The negative case is also coherent. Public evidence does not disclose per-meter margin. Large contracts may require heavy field labour, partner coordination, network densification and support. Utility procurement is slow and price-sensitive. Cellular IoT plans offer a public price anchor for low-data connections. Private network builds can be rational for large utilities. Meter vendors and mobile operators can bundle pieces of the stack. Acquisitions can expand capability while adding integration burden. After delisting, investors and outside analysts see less financial detail.
Three facts would most improve the judgement. First, active billable meter connections by programme, separated from contracted or planned meters. Second, gross margin or contribution margin per active meter connection after network operations, support and field-cost allocations. Third, renewal or extension behaviour after initial contract terms, especially for the South West Water and Swedish subscription cohorts. Those facts would show whether the patient work compounds or merely keeps the company busy.
Until those facts appear, the careful conclusion is this: Netmore has found a serious niche where tiny data flows can matter because the operating obligation is large. A single water-meter connection is not exciting. A million of them, tied to leakage reduction, customer billing, water-resource planning and service-level commitments, become infrastructure. The company earns its place if it can make each connection boring in the best sense: installed, covered, secure, monitored, renewed and useful to the utility long after the announcement fades.