Skip to main content
. 2026 Aug 19;16(40):45688–45741. doi: 10.1039/d6ra02874h

Table 4. Comparison of conventional vs. inverted OSC architectures.94–101.

Aspect Conventional OSC Inverted OSC
Device configuration ITO/HTL/active layer/ETL/low-work-function metal (Al, Ca) cathode ITO (modified cathode)/ETL/active layer/HTL/high-work-function metal (Ag, Au)
Charge extraction Holes collected at bottom; electrons at the top electrode Electrons collected at bottom; holes at the top electrode
Electrode stability Reactive cathode prone to oxidation and corrosion Air-stable top electrode enhances durability
Sensitivity to oxygen/moisture Highly sensitive; faster degradation in ambient air Improved resistance to oxygen and moisture ingress
Interfacial stability PEDOT : PSS can etch ITO and induce instability Metal-oxide ETLs (ZnO, SnO2, and TiO2) provide robust interfaces
Thermal and operational stability Moderate stability: interfacial reactions accelerate aging Superior thermal and operational stability
Fabrication compatibility Often requires vacuum deposition of reactive metals Compatible with solution processing and scalable fabrication
Suitability for flexible devices Limited due to electrode reactivity Highly suitable for flexible and large-area devices
Overall stability outlook Lower long-term stability Preferred architecture for high-stability OSCs