Table 4. The comparison of PV parameters of Cs2CuBiBr6 and similar absorbers-based SCsa.
| Type | Optimized devices | V OC (V) | J SC (mA cm−2) | FF (%) | PCE (%) | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E | FTO/TiO2/Cs2AgBiBr6/spiro-OMeTAD/MoO3/Ag | 1.01 | 3.82 | 65 | 2.51 | 84 |
| E | FTO/c-TiO2/mTiO2/Cs2AgBiBr6/N719/spiro-OmeTAD/Ag | 1.06 | 5.13 | — | 2.84 | 85 |
| E | FTO/TiO2/Cs2AgBiBr6/spiro-OMeTAD/Au | 1.511 | 3.89 | 51.76 | 3.04 | 86 |
| T | ITO/SnO2/Cs2AgBiBr6/spiro-OMeTAD/Au | 0.92 | 11.4 | 60.93 | 6.37 | 87 |
| T | FTO/WS2/Cs2CuBiBr6/spiro-OMeTAD/Ag | 0.60 | 34.59 | 67.36 | 14.08 | 21 |
| T | FTO/TiO2/Cs2AgSbBr6/spiro-OMeTAD/Ag | 0.94 | 22.49 | 50.2 | 10.69 | 21 |
| T | ITO/WS2/Cs2CuBiBr6/CBTS/Ni | 0.712 | 35.63 | 77.57 | 19.70 | This work |
| T | ITO/C60/Cs2CuBiBr6/CBTS/Ni | 0.709 | 34.07 | 77.39 | 18.69 | This work |
| T | ITO/PCBM/Cs2CuBiBr6/CBTS/Ni | 0.709 | 35.59 | 77.35 | 19.52 | This work |
| T | ITO/TiO2/Cs2CuBiBr6/CBTS/Ni | 0.711 | 35.62 | 77.52 | 19.65 | This work |
a
E – experimental, T – theoretical.