## 4 Comparative Analysis and Results
In Table 3, the first dead node for validation by the rounds of LEACH-C, Optimal-CBR, CHIRON, and k-means are 286, 578, 332, and 459, respectively. However, the proposed method leads with 590. The end-to-end latency analysis used for performance analysis is shown in Figure 4. It is seen that less delay is obtained with the proposed algorithm compared to other algorithms. The occurrence of a delay in the proposed method is compared to Optimal Cluster-Based Routing (CBR), k-means, Chain-Based Hierarchical Routing Protocol (CHIRON), and Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy Centralized (LEACH-C) in Table 4.  
Table 4 shows that the end-to-end delay by the number of rounds by Optimal-CBR is 0.5 per 200 rounds, 1.9 per 400 rounds, 2.9 per 600 rounds, 3.9 per 800 rounds, and 5.2 per 1000 rounds. The method k-means produced 0.8 per 200, 1.7 per 400, 2.6 per 600, 3.5 per 800, and 4.7 per 1000. The CHIRON method yields 1 per 200, 2.8 per 400, 3.8 per 600, 4.5 per 800, and 6 per 1000. LEACH-C gives 0.7 per 200, 2.3 per 400, 3.2 per 600, 4.1 per 800, and 5.5 per 1000. Among all these methods, the proposed method has lower end-to-end delay by the number of rounds than the other methods, and the values in the proposed method are 1 per 0.3 per 200, 1.4 per 400, 2.3 per 600, 3.1 per 800, and 4.4 per 1000. Therefore, our proposed system scored low in the end-to-end delay by the number of rounds compared to k-means, LEACH-C, CHIRON, and Optimal-CBR. The simulation graphs in Figure 5 show that the proposed method has better recorded throughput than Optimal Cluster-Based Routing (CBR). Compared with the k-means, Chain-Based Hierarchical Routing Protocol (CHIRON), and Low-Energy Adaptive Clustering Hierarchy Centralized (LEACH-C) protocols, the proposed method has an increased \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**End-to-End Delay** & & & & & \\
**and Number** & **200** & **400** & **600** & **800** & **1000** \\ \hline CHIRON & 1 & 2.8 & 3.8 & 4.5 & 6 \\ \hline LEACH-C & 0.7 & 2.3 & 3.2 & 4.1 & 5.5 \\ \hline Optimal-CBR & 0.5 & 1.9 & 2.9 & 3.9 & 5.2 \\ \hline K-mean & 0.8 & 1.7 & 2.6 & 3.5 & 4.7 \\ \hline Proposed & 0.3 & 1.4 & 2.3 & 3.1 & 4.4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Differentiation of end-to-end delay by several methods. Figure 4: Comparison end-to-end delay analyses. lifespan. This is mainly due to the quicker optimum solution techniques of the combined GWO-DFO technique. The calculation of the throughput value of the proposed simulator is given in Equation (19). Here \(D_{\textit{successful}\textit{delivered}}\) is refers to the successful delivered packet in each communication, \(D_{\textit{Average Size}}\) is refers to the average packet size, and \(D_{\textit{Sent Time}}\) is refers to the total time taken for the sent packets. The list of throughput values measured is given in Table 5.  
\[\textit{Throughput}=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{\textit{made}}\left(D_{\textit{Successful }\textit{delivered}}\right)\times\left(D_{\textit{Average Size}}\right)}{D_{ \textit{Sent Time}}} \tag{19}\]  
Table 5 illustrates that throughput by the number of rounds by Optimal-CBR is 0.9 per 500 rounds, 1.8 per 1000 rounds, 2.4 per 1500 rounds, 2.5 per 2000 round, and 2.4 per 25,000 rounds. K-means produced 0.7 per 500, 1.5 per 1000, 2.1 per 1500, 2.1 per 2000, and 2.1 per 2500. The CHIRON method yields 0.3 per 500, 0.9 per 1000, 1 per 1500, 1.1 per 2000, and 1.1 per 2500. LEACH-C gives 0.5 per 500, 1 per 1000, 1.5 per 1500, 1.7 per 2000, and 1.7 per 2500. The proposed method has higher throughput by the number of rounds than the other methods. The values in the proposed method are 1 per 500, 1.9 per 1000, 2.5 per 1500, 2.8 per 2000, and 2.9 per 25,000. Therefore, from the above interpretation, our proposed system scored high in the throughput by the number of rounds compared to k-means, LEACH-C, CHI-RON, and Optimal-CBR. The packet transmission rate comparison is shown in Figure 6. TC-SSA [26], EAT-SRA [27], ETGSA [28], ECATS [29], and SEORMP [16] are used for the comparison.