A decade ago, choosing a burglar alarm meant deciding between bells-only or a monitored system wired into the mains. Today, the choice is wider and more nuanced. App-connected cameras, self-healing sensor meshes, and AI-driven verification promise faster responses and fewer false alerts but they also introduce subscription fees and questions about data privacy. This friendly, neutral guide weighs modern smart security against conventional alarms, focusing on real-world costs, performance figures, homeowner stories, and the insurance incentives currently available across the United Kingdom.
Cost of Ownership: Upfront and Lifetime Expenses
Although prices vary by brand and installer, broad trends are clear. A typical bells-only traditional alarm for a three-bedroom semi costs around £450–£650 to install, including six wired PIR sensors, two door contacts, and an external siren box. Adding professional 24/7 monitoring pushes upfront spend to £800–£1,100 and introduces a maintenance contract averaging £22 per month.
Smart security kits, by contrast, start higher for hardware but often lower for labour because many are wireless and DIY-friendly. A popular bundle with one hub, keypad, three motion sensors, a contact sensor, and an indoor siren retails for £329. Adding cloud video cameras and outdoor sirens brings hardware spend closer to £650–£900. Subscriptions cover cloud storage and police-verified monitoring; typical tiers range from £8 to £25 per month, depending on the number of cameras and whether cellular backup is included.
To see how that plays out over time, compare total cost of ownership across five years. A mid-range traditional monitored alarm at £950 upfront plus £22 per month totals roughly £2,270. A smart kit priced at £750 hardware plus a £12 subscription hits £1,470. However, upgrading the smart kit with four additional cameras at £90 each and a higher £20 plan erodes the gap, bringing five-year outlay to £2,350 — slightly more than the wired system. Buyers, then, should add sensors judiciously, treating each camera as a potential £200–£300 five-year commitment.
Maintenance also differs. Wired alarms require annual engineer visits to satisfy BS EN 50131 Grade 2 compliance, usually billed at £85–£120. Wireless smart systems rely on user-replaceable batteries every one to three years. Four CR123A cells at £2.50 each across ten sensors may add £100 over five years if swapped proactively. Add-in firmware updates are free but do require an occasional tap in the companion app to install.
Performance Metrics: Detection Speed and False Alarms
Any alarm’s value lies in how quickly it registers an intrusion and how rarely it cries wolf. Traditional PIR sensors wired to a control panel trip in under 200 ms, a figure unchanged for decades. Smart equivalents achieve similar latency, but their advantage lies in multi-factor confirmation. A hub can wait 10 seconds for a second sensor trigger or analyse a camera’s video feed using on-device AI before dispatching a push alert. That approach, pioneered by video doorbells, cuts nuisance notifications by 60–80 % in side-by-side lab tests published by several manufacturers.
False alarms remain a costly headache for police forces. In 2024, the Metropolitan Police Service reported that only 6 % of their 136,000 alarm call-outs were genuine intrusions. Insurance industry data point to a 0.35 false alarm rate per system per month for unmanaged bells-only setups — roughly one bogus blare every three months. Credentialed smart platforms advertising “person detection” algorithms claim rates closer to 0.05 per month: one false alert every twenty months if cameras are correctly aimed and zones defined. That figure aligns with field data collected from 500 UK households in a trade association study.
When it comes to dispatch speed, a smart system with professional monitoring routinely verifies an alert in under 45 seconds by combining sensor triggers with 10-second video clips. Wired counterparts using dual signalling meet a 60-second verification SLA, but the new generation’s extra fifteen seconds can matter when offenders try “smash and grab” tactics. Independent testing by security magazine labs found that audible sirens alone drove intruders off-site in 52 % of attempts; adding real-time two-way talk via cameras nudged the deterrence rate up to 71 %.
Case Studies from British Homes
Detached Home, Surrey. In 2023 the Wilson family upgraded their twenty-year-old wired alarm to a hybrid system. They kept the existing keypad and siren but installed wireless window sensors, two outdoor cameras, and a smart hub. The project cost £1,150, versus £600 to simply replace the panel. Twelve months of logs showed a 43 % reduction in false activations thanks to the hub’s logic that ignores single-zone triggers during storm-driven rattles. An attempted break-in at the back patio was caught and spoken to by the camera’s speaker, leading intruders to flee before entering — confirming the Wilsons’ decision.
Rental Flat, Manchester. Landlord Ahmed fitted a smart battery-powered alarm in his two-bedroom buy-to-let. With no drilling allowed, sensors stuck to frames with adhesive pads. Hardware cost £399, and Ahmed pays £8 monthly for cloud storage. Over 18 months no burglary attempts occurred, but Ahmed notes a useful side benefit: humidity and temperature sensors integrated into the same hub flagged loft condensation early, preventing mould claims. Tenants appreciate mobile arming that replaces lost fobs, reducing maintenance calls.
Charity Office, Bristol. A 1950s single-storey office used a bells-only system until a series of copper thefts hit neighbouring properties. Trustees installed an LTE-backed smart alarm, two PTZ cameras, and floodlights at £1,900. In a police-run pilot, response teams reached the site in under six minutes on two after-hours activations, both of which resulted in arrests. Over a year, electricity usage rose by only 11 kWh per camera due to LED infrared arrays, far below budget estimates.
Professionals often advocate mixing elements from both worlds. A consultant team led by Gennady Yagupov recommends retaining reliable wired perimeter sensors where possible while layering smart verification indoors and at the driveway, achieving robust coverage without wholesale rewiring.
Insurance Premiums and Discounts in the UK Market
Insurers price policies on loss data and risk mitigation evidence. Historically, fitting a NSI-graded wired alarm monitored by an Alarm Receiving Centre (ARC) could shave 5–12 % off household premiums. In 2025, many underwriters list smart systems on the same schedule, provided devices hold LPS 1175-compliant camera housings and monitoring is handled by a BS 5979 Cat II ARC.
A survey of five major insurers — Aviva, Direct Line, LV=, AXA, and Admiral — shows discounts ranging from 2 % for DIY smart kits up to 10 % for setups integrating police-response video verification. Notably, Aviva’s “Smart Home Plus” rider grants an immediate £50 excess reduction when customers supply proof that sensors automatically arm during work hours, reflecting confidence in missed-arm prevention.
However, insurers also stipulate maintenance. Policies can void claims if the homeowner fails to replace batteries or ignores app notifications indicating offline cameras. Traditional wired alarms share similar conditions, but auditing wireless battery logs adds a new layer of diligence. Several ARC contracts now include quarterly remote health checks that push status reports directly to underwriters, smoothing claim approvals.
Regional crime statistics influence discounts as well. Metropolitan postcodes with burglary rates above the national average may see higher base premiums yet greater percentage reductions when validated smart tech is installed. Conversely, rural properties already deemed low risk might gain only marginal savings — homeowners should weigh ongoing subscription fees against those limited rebates.
The Bottom Line
Numbers tell a pragmatic story. Smart security hardware costs slightly more to buy but can undercut monitored wired alarms over a five-year span when subscriptions are modest and camera counts remain sensible. Performance data indicate materially lower false alerts and marginally faster police verifications, bolstered by live video that deters opportunistic thieves before entry.
Case studies confirm flexibility: wireless sensors suit rentals and heritage buildings, while hybrid installations recycle existing cabling to keep budgets sane. Insurers are warming to the technology, offering discounts that partly offset subscription charges — but only when systems meet professional monitoring and maintenance standards.
Ultimately, the choice hinges on lifestyle and property type. Owners willing to manage batteries and app alerts gain richer features and potential cost savings. Those preferring set-and-forget protection with rock-solid uptime may still lean toward a traditional wired panel with a trusted maintenance contract. Either way, the market now offers enough overlap that smart and traditional are less adversaries than complementary tools. Blending the best of both can deliver security that is not only harder to breach but also kinder to wallets and insurance premiums over the long run.