## 3 Results and Discussion
### Comparative Analysis  
The summary for comparative analysis of the proposed design is reported in Table 3. The design reported in [16] provides the mid-band bandwidth of 0.2 GHz (3.4-3.6), whereas the proposed design provides a mid-bandwidth of 2.79 GHz; in addition to that, it can be noted that, in all other figures of merit, the proposed design provides even better performance. In [17], the reported design has an operation \(-\)6 dB bandwidth (in the best case) of 0.4 GHz, in the 5G lower band, and of 0.775 GHz (5.15-5.925) in another band. The 0.4 GHz range is 3.4-3.8 GHz, as per \(-\)6 dB standard. In comparison, the proposed design provides a continuous \(-\)10 dB bandwidth of 2.79 GHz, covering 4G LTE and a complete lower 5G band. In all of the other mentioned performance metrics, the proposed design showed better performance. The design reported in [18] is a multi-layer design with the  
Figure 22: The measured and simulated CCL for mid-band MIMO configuration. antenna dimension significantly larger than that of our proposed design. In addition to that, the reported design (in [18]) does not cover the complete lower 5G band. The gain of the reported low- or mid-band design is lower than that of our proposed design. The operational bandwidth and gain reported for the low- and high-frequency bands are lower than our proposed bandwidth and gain; therefore, the proposed design is a better option than the reported design. In [20], a design based on the conformal approach was proposed. The mid-band characteristics of the reported design are comparatively lower than those of our proposed design. In the high-band, the operational bandwidth of the reported design is 2.01 GHz (between 26.99 and 29 GHz), whereas our proposed design has an operational bandwidth of 3.85 GHz (24.15-28 GHz), covering a mmWave band from 24.25 to 27.5 GHz. Therefore, keeping in view the bandwidth and gain trade-off, our proposed design has better performance than the design reported in [20]. Our design offers 8.57 dBi gain at 28 GHz with a bandwidth of 3.85 GHz. In addition to that, the gain of 9 dB in the reported design's performance characteristics is not constant in the entire band. In [21], the reported design has an array configuration in the mid-band. The footprint of the reported antenna is larger than that of our proposed antenna. The reported design offers a bandwidth in chunks of 0.16 and 0.55 GHz, whereas our proposed design has a continuous bandwidth of 2.79 GHz. The gain-bandwidth trade-off of the proposed design, along with efficiency and all other figures of merit, is better than the reported design in mid-band. The mmWave antenna reported in [20] is also an array, with a footprint far bigger than the proposed design, with a bandwidth of 1.3 GHz. The proposed design has an operational bandwidth of 3.83 GHz in the high-band; so, our proposed design is better in performance than the design reported in [21], in terms of gain-bandwidth trade-off and compactness. The design reported in [22] is lower in performance in almost every aspect than our proposed design. In [23], an integrated design for lower 5G and mmWave was reported. The lower band or mid-band MIMO antenna has an operational bandwidth of 0.28 GHz, which is low, as compared to our proposed design, offering 2.79 GHz of bandwidth. The proposed design provides better performance in all of the other figures of merit. The design also reported a MIMO antenna configuration in the mmWave 5G band. The antenna reported for this band is also an array and has a footprint bigger than our proposed antenna. Moreover, the isolation offered by our proposed design is 29 dB or higher and the isolation of the design reported in [23] is 28 dB or higher. Therefore, our proposed design offers better isolation. In addition to that, the radiation efficiency of our proposed design is also higher. Therefore, our proposed design can be considered as a good alternative to the design reported in [23].