From this comparison, the iodide-doped sulfide + self-healing interface approach appears to have higher upside potential, especially in solving one of the most difficult practical bottlenecks (interface contact without external pressure). If that can be made robust and manufacturable, it could be a more disruptive leap.
However, it also comes with higher technical risk (long-term stability, scale-up, manufacturing reproducibility, interface robustness under cycling, environmental tolerance). The oxide densification route is more conservative but safer — less radical, but more likely to yield incremental immediate gains and be integrated with existing manufacturing techniques.
So the “better” or “superior” answer depends on what you value more (breakthrough potential vs proven risk).
My view: which is more promising
Given what is reported, I lean toward the iodide-doping / self-healing interface sulfide approach being more promising in the medium to long term, because it addresses a deeply challenging bottleneck (the solid–solid interface and pressure requirement). If that obstacle can be overcome in a stable, scalable way, it unlocks a lot of the promise of solid-state batteries (higher energy density, safety, simpler packaging).
But I would remain cautious: performance claims (hundreds of cycles, > 500 Wh/kg) are promising but not yet at commercial standards (thousands of cycles, robustness across full temperature ranges, safety, manufacturability). The oxide densification work is more incremental but less risky; it might contribute pieces to the larger puzzle.
So in summary: the iodide-doping / self-healing interface approach has more “disruptive” potential, but the oxide sintering/processing improvements are safer, more incremental steps. Neither is obviously “superior” yet in all metrics.
If you like, I can dig into the original research papers underlying both articles and estimate which has better chances of commercialization. Do you want me to do that?
