## 8 Link Budget Study
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline
**Ref/ Year** & **No. of** & **Volumetric Size** & **Frequency Band** & **Isolation** & **Max. Peak** & **ECCC** & **MEG (dB)** & **CCL** & **Bending** & **Analysis** & **SAR (1/10 g)** & **Link Budget** \\
[1] & 4 & 25 \(\times\) 25 \(\times\) 0.027 & & & & & & & & & & & \\
[2023] & & & (91.88) & 25.28–28.02 & \(>\)23.2 & 8.72 & \(<\)0.0015 & NR & NR & NR & NR & NR \\ \hline
[5] & 30 \(\times\) 15 \(\times\) 0.203 & 28/38 (former & \(>\)32.3 & 6.9 & \(<\)10\({}^{-4}\) & NR & \(<\)0.4 & NR & NR & NR \\
[6] & 2 & (91.35) & frequency & \(>\)32.3 & 6.9 & \(<\)10\({}^{-4}\) & NR & \(<\)0.4 & NR & NR & NR \\ \hline
[7] & 26 \(\times\) 14 \(\times\) 0.762 & 27.1–28.8 & \(>\)34.6 & 6.5 & 0.2 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-4}\) & NR & NR & NR & NR & NR \\
[8] & 4 & 26 \(\times\) 0.52 & 27.7–28.3 & \(>\)33 & 8.1 & \(<\)0.0005 & NR & \(<\)0.0064 & NR & NR & NR \\
[9] & 4 & 38 \(\times\) 36 \(\times\) 0.8 & & & & & & & & & \\
[1094] & 27 & 22.2–28.85 & \(>\)26.31 & 7.2 & \(<\)0.002 & NR & NR & NR & NR & NR \\
[11] & 2 & 18 \(\times\) 9.2 \(\times\) 0.767 & 28/38 (former & \(>\)30 & 7.8 & \(<\)0.0001 & NR & \(<\)0.05 & NR & NR & NR \\
[12] & 2 & 8 \(\times\) 15 \(\times\) 0.88 & 23.2–25.5 & \(>\)15 & 8.5 & \(<\)0.005 & Value not & \(<\)0.315 & NR & NR & NR \\
[13] & 2 & (06) & 34.2–36.4 & \(>\)20 & 23.3–3 & \(>\) & & & & & \\
[14] & 4 & 48 \(\times\) 12 \(\times\) 0.254 & 22.3–37 & \(>\)20 & 5.7 & \(<\)0.0015 & \(<\)3.13 & NR & NR & NR & NR \\
[15] & 1 & 25 \(\times\) 15 \(\times\) 0.762 & 27.7–28.7/ & NA & 9.0 & NA & NA & NA & NA & NA \\
[16] & 4 & 16 \(\times\) 12 \(\times\) 0.25 & 27.43–28.41 & \(>\)24 & \(>\)24 & \(>\)27.8/ & \(>\)18.99 & 7.59 & \(<\)0.025 & NR & NR & Yes & NR & NR \\
[20] & 4 & (68) & 40.11–41.7 & \(>\)24 & \(>\)27.8 & \(>\)18.99 & \(>\)10.02 & NA & NA & NA & NA & 1.07 & NA \\
[17] & 2 & 20.99 \(\times\) 114.2 \(\times\) 0.588 & 27.9–29 & NA & 11.0 & NA & NA & NA & NA & 1.07 & NA \\
[18] & 1 & (66.7) & & & & & & & & & & \\
[19] & 2 & 36 \(\times\) 25.5 \(\times\) 0.588 & 24.3–1 & \(>\)25 & 6.1 & \(<\)0.003 & \(-\)6 & \(<\)0.26 & Yes & 1.64/2.18 & \(>\)10 \\
[109] & 2 & 36 \(\times\) 15 \(\times\) 0.25 & 27.7–28.48/ & \(>\)20 & 7.73 & \(<\)0.03 & \(-\)6 & \(<\)0.15 & Yes & 0.11/0.08 and & \(>\)33 \\
[110] & 4 & 18 \(\times\) 8.55 \(\times\) 0.25 & 26.2–27.36/ & \(>\)20 & 7.07 & \(<\)0.03 & \(-\)6 & \(<\)0.15 & Yes & 0.01/0.08 and & \(>\)33 \\
[111] & 4 & 4 & 48 \(\times\) 11 \(\times\) 0.25 & 27.3–28.62 & \(>\)24 & 8.58 & \(<\)0.02 & \(\leq\)\(-\)6.05 & \(<\)0.31 & Yes & 0.007/s and & \(>\)33.69 (up to & 121.0) \\
[112] & 37.39–34/ & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular} Note: NA–Not Applicable, NR–Not Reported.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Comparison of the proposed antenna with latest reported antennas. Table 5 shows the comparison of the proposed antenna with the various existing mm-wave antennas. The proposed antenna has four ports, which is better than the antennas with fewer ports, as more ports provide more available channels for communication. The presented 4-port antenna is compact in size when compared with the 4-port antennas presented in [1; 8; 9; 13; 20]. The 4-port antenna presented in [16] has less isolation of 18.89 dB as compared to the isolation of 24 dB by the proposed 4-port antenna. Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed antenna has a simple, novel, and compact configuration with 4-port operation and high isolation (>24 dB) between the antenna elements. All these qualities make the proposed antenna suitable for mm-wave applications.