Table 1. Supercapacitive Performance Comparison of Some Reported Metal Oxide Nanostructures with the Current MO, CO, and CMO@MCO Nanostructured Materials.

electrode materials	method	electrode system	applied current/scan rate	Cs (F/g)	ref
NiCo2O4–NiO nanoflowers	CD	asymmetric two-electrode	1 A/g	82.1	(25)
Mn3O4 micropillars/walls	CD	three-electrode	0.5 A/g	210	(26)
Sr0.9Ca0.1Cu2O2 nanostructures	cv three-electrode	three-electrode	0.47 A/g	308.0	(27)
3D nanoporous CuO	CD	symmetric two-electrode	3.5 mA/cm2	431	(30)
Ni/CuO nanoplates	CD	three-electrode	2 A/g	535	(31)
Cu/CuO nanobuds	CD	three-electrode	0.7 A/g	230	(31)
Cu/CuO nanoflowers	CD	three-electrode	0.7 A/g	296	(31)
Mn90Fe10 oxide	CV	three-electrode	5 mV/s	255	(35)
Mn–Cu binary oxides nanostructures	CV	symmetric two-electrode	0.5 A/g	417	(36)
Cu-doped Mn3O4 hollow structures	CD	asymmetric two-electrode	1 A/g	305	(42)
Cr-doped Mn3O4 nanocrystals	CD	three-electrode	0.5 A/g	272	(58)
CuO nanosheets	CD	three-electrode	1 A/g	418	(60)
Ag-doped CuO nanosheets	CD	three-electrode	10 A/g	299	(60)
Mn3O4 nanoparticles/MWCNT composites	CV	three-electrode	5 mV/s	420	(61)
MO, CO, and CMO@MCO nanostructures	CV	three-electrode	5 mV/s	541.1, 706.7, and 997.2, respectively	this work
	CD		1.3 A/g	413.4, 480.5, and 561.1, respectively