Table 2.

Comparison of the proposed antenna with recently reported circularly polarized antenna designs targeting satellite applications.

References	Antenna type	Polarizer type	Frequency band (GHz)	Axial ratio (dB)	Gain (dBic)	Advantages of the Proposed work
27	Quadrifilar Helix	Inherent	2–2.2 GHz	5	3	Higher gain with isoflux profile, better axial ratio and dual polarized
28	Waveguide slot array	Waveguide-based CP	Dual-band at 12 GHz for Tx and at 14.5 GHz for Rx	3 dB for Tx band 4 dB for Rx band	3	Better axial ratio, and higher gain with isoflux profile
29	Waveguide with diaphragms	Waveguide polarizer	10.7–12.8	1.5	N/A	Better axial ratio, simpler two-port coaxial polarizer
30	Coaxial-to-waveguide converter Antenna	Mode converter antenna	9.95–10.05	1.43	Low gain	Wider frequency band, better axial ratio, higher gain with isoflux profile, and simpler coaxial polarizer
31	Patch + superstrate + cavity-backed	Sequential phase + cavity	7.6–9.7	≤ 3	9.3	More compact design, higher gain, but lacks absorber-enhanced isoflux shaping
32	Dielectric lens fed by phased array	Circular polarization via array	26–30	≤ 1.5	17.5	Excellent scanning and gain, but larger size and higher complexity
33	Spherical Luneburg lens with printed feed	Inherent via lens symmetry	8.2–12.5	≤ 3	11.3	High gain and broad bandwidth, but lacks polarization filtering control
Present	Lens backed by PANI absorber	Two-port coaxial polarizer	9.75–10.25	0.05	6