That is all very well, no disrespect to Mark, but it doesn't mean a lot from an Instrument Engineers point of view. Far too many variables for a start. Stack, autometer, AEM, Zeitronix etc all use analogue controllers which derive a value based on the calibration resistor in the sensor. Sensors drift. The pro's change their sensors and pay a lot more to get accurate calibration values. The innovate does not use the calibration resistor.

Quote from Innovate tech docs:

The biggest difference is actually the (pat. pend.) measurement principle of the LM-1. Different from all other widebands it does NOT use the pump current as AFR indication. Instead it uses the sensor to form with the LM-1 circuit what's called a delta-sigma analog to digital converter. The difference is that the analog signal in this case is not a voltage or current, but directly the exhaust gas composition. This allows it to:

A: react extremely fast with no settling or overswing
B: be independent of electronic parts tolerances and drifts
C: compensate for sensor drift due to aging every time you do a free air calibration.
D: calibrate for the actual sensor characteristic independent of the factory calibration resistor, which is only correct when the sensor is new.
E: is much less susceptible to exhaust back pressure.

Another advantage of that measurement principle is automatic compensation for 'rich gas loading'. This is an effect most WB manufacturers do not compensate for or even know of. When a WB sensor is operating in a rich gas for a prolonged time (minutes), it's cells 'load up' and slowly drift, requiring more and more pump current. This will indicate richer and richer than it actually is. If the ECU is WB controlled in closed loop, the engine would actually run leaner and leaner to compensate.
The LM-1's measurement principle is not susceptible to that.