LFP vs. NCM: Not Better or Worse, Just Different Optimization Axes

What Is in Focus: The Return of LFP

LFP (lithium iron phosphate) and NCM (nickel-cobalt-manganese ternary) are not upgrades of one another; they are chemistries that optimize different performance axes. The reason LFP is drawing attention again is not performance but cost and safety. Judged by energy density alone it falls behind NCM, but it wins on other axes. This piece lays out that difference through both numbers and patent history.

Start with the industry picture. The International Energy Agency (IEA) reported that LFP supplied more than 40% of global EV battery demand (by capacity) in 2023. The same source explains that two-thirds of EV sales in China used LFP in 2023, while LFP’s share in Europe and the United States remained below 10%. This is where the tension arises: the fact that the same chemistry is mainstream in one market and a minority in another cannot be explained by “which performs better” alone.

This piece answers two questions. First, along which axes do LFP and NCM diverge? Second, from a patent perspective, what conditions enabled LFP’s spread, and where should planning and IP staff be looking now?

Basic Principle: Why the Two Chemistries Stand in Different Places

The difference begins with the crystal structure of the cathode material (the active material of the battery’s positive electrode). LFP has an olivine structure in which phosphate (PO₄) units hold oxygen tightly, so the crystal structure itself is thermally stable. NCM, by contrast, has a layered oxide structure, and the academic literature reports that raising its nickel content increases discharge capacity while capacity retention and safety characteristics gradually decline.

By analogy, LFP is “a warehouse of bricks firmly cemented together,” while NCM is “a shelving warehouse stacked higher on the same lot.” The shelving warehouse can hold more cargo (lithium and electrons) on the same footprint, but in a fire the shelves can collapse and release oxygen as fuel. The brick warehouse holds less, but its structure is more likely to hold up when heated.

Voltage is another variable that separates energy density. A 2022 academic review put LFP’s nominal cell voltage at about 3.2 V (vs. Li/Li⁺) and its specific energy in the 90-170 Wh/kg range. Because stored energy (Wh) is the product of charge and voltage, lower-voltage LFP must be heavier and larger to hold the same energy. The same review notes that LFP’s electronic conductivity is low, on the order of 10⁻⁶ to 10⁻¹⁰ S/cm, which is why complementary techniques such as carbon coating have become practically essential.

• LFP’s axes: cost (no cobalt or nickel), thermal stability, long cycle life
• NCM’s axes: high energy density, i.e., longer driving range per unit of weight and volume

This structural difference separates applications. In uses where cost, life, and safety matter more than range (entry-level EVs, ESS), LFP is actually advantageous. Conversely, in premium and long-range models where body space and weight are constrained, NCM’s ability to pack more energy into the same space becomes more valuable. In other words, the starting point for choosing a chemistry is not “which is better” but “what constraints the product operates under.”

Comparison: The Optimization Axes in Numbers

The table below adds representative LFP figures confirmed in published literature to the original comparison table. Because figures vary widely by cell design and generation, it is safer to read them for “direction” rather than absolute values. NCM’s quantitative figures vary greatly by composition and product, so this piece keeps NCM as a qualitative comparison.

Item	LFP	NCM
Energy density	Low (specific energy 90-170 Wh/kg reported)	High
Nominal cell voltage (V)	About 3.2	Higher than LFP
Cathode theoretical capacity (mAh/g)	About 170	Varies by composition (higher Ni raises discharge capacity)
Cost	Low (no cobalt or nickel)	High
Life (cycles)	Long (about 1,500 cycles; 10,000 cycles at 0.5C reported for commercial 18650 cells)	Relatively short
Thermal stability	Excellent (reported to withstand up to 270°C)	Moderate to low (depending on Ni content)

What this table says: LFP’s specific energy is reported at around 90-170 Wh/kg, so it trails NCM on the energy axis. On the three axes of cycle life, cost, and thermal stability, however, LFP leads, so “which axis takes priority” decides the choice.

The cost axis also moves over time. The IEA reported that NCM batteries’ price premium over LFP fell from 50% in 2021 to less than 25% in 2023.

Indicator	Value	Period
LFP share of global EV battery demand (by capacity)	More than 40%	2023
Share of EV sales in China using LFP	About two-thirds	2023
LFP share of EV sales in Europe and the US	Below 10%	2023
NCM price premium over LFP	50% → less than 25%	2021 → 2023

What this table says: LFP’s share differs sharply by region, and NCM’s price premium more than halved in two years. As the cost advantage narrows, the rationale for choosing LFP is likely to shift from cost alone to cost combined with the life and safety axes.

This is the core interpretation of this piece. Seeing LFP simply as a low-cost substitute misses the chemistry’s strengths. A long cycle life means a long-term advantage in total cost of ownership (TCO, the full cost from purchase to disposal). In uses such as ESS (energy storage systems) that charge and discharge every day, this characteristic matters more than energy density. In a phase where the upfront price gap is narrowing, “cost per cycle” rather than “one-time purchase price” is likely to become the metric that explains LFP’s real competitiveness.

Patent Perspective: Expiry of the Base Material Patent and the Shifting IP Landscape

Claim gist: The patent most often cited as the starting point for LFP-family olivine cathodes is US granted patent US5910382A (a cathode material invention; original assignee University of Texas System; inventors John B. Goodenough and three others). It has a priority date of April 23, 1996, was filed on April 21, 1997, and was granted on June 8, 1999; the rights were assigned to Hydro-Québec on January 28, 2011. In substance, claim 1 is a broad material-based claim covering a compound of lithium, a first-row transition metal, and phosphate groups used as a cathode material, forming a cell together with an anode and electrolyte.

Filing history: According to Google Patents, this patent lapsed on April 21, 2017 upon expiry of its term (Expired – Lifetime). The IEA also explains that the core LFP patents expired in 2022, sparking interest in production outside China. The difference between the two dates matters. The broad rights over the material itself were released in 2017, but it can be read that follow-on core patents governing mass-production performance remained until around 2022. This is the basis for the interpretation that IP competition has shifted to the improvement layer: carbon coating, doping, particle design, manufacturing processes, and cell structure.

Design-around points: The expiry of the base material patent does not mean every LFP product is safe from an FTO (freedom-to-operate, infringement review) standpoint. Technologies that determine actual mass-production performance, such as the carbon coating that compensates for the low electronic conductivity noted above, particle-size control, and heteroatom doping, may be protected by separate patents. Infringement risk must therefore be judged not at the level of “do you use LFP” but at the level of “which coating, process, and compositional limitations do you use.”

Design-around scenario (counterargument): Using a different carbon source or coating process to avoid a specific coating-method patent may avoid literal infringement by lacking one claim element. On the other hand, if the substitute achieves the same function and effect, it may be subject to a doctrine-of-equivalents analysis, so whether a design-around succeeds can only be judged by case-by-case claim comparison. Within the scope of this piece, the numbers and owners of individual LFP improvement patents currently in force could not be confirmed from public patent information, so they are left as the tracking points below.

• Tracking point 1: Distribution by applicant of LFP cathode patents related to carbon coating and doping (based on KIPRIS and Google Patents search queries)
• Tracking point 2: Term and regional grant status of manufacturing-process claims (firing conditions, precursor synthesis)

Limits and Outlook

The optimistic outlook is that LFP keeps gaining share in entry-level EVs and ESS on the strength of its cost, safety, and life axes and the expiry of core patents. There is, however, a counter-scenario. If NCM’s price premium keeps shrinking as the IEA data suggest, NCM may regain competitiveness in mid-size and large vehicle segments where energy density matters, as the “expensive but goes farther” option. In that case, LFP’s position could narrow to applications where life and safety, not cost, are decisive.

The strategic alternative is to manage chemistries not as a “ranking” but as a “portfolio.” If the required axes for each application (range, cost per cycle, thermal safety) are defined first at the product-planning stage and LFP and NCM are reviewed in parallel against them, the risk of being exposed all at once to one chemistry’s price swings or patent risks can be reduced. Ultimately, LFP and NCM are not better or worse than each other but chemistries with different optimization axes, and the choice depends on whether the application demands range or cost, life, and safety.

Practical action: Planning and IP staff considering LFP adoption should not treat “expiry of the base material patent” as the end of FTO. They should list the coating, doping, and process specifications of the cathode material to be adopted, then separately screen KIPRIS and Google Patents for in-force patents corresponding to those specifications.

Items requiring verification

• Representative figures, based on primary sources, for NCM cells’ nominal voltage (V) and for specific energy (Wh/kg) and cycle life by composition (NCM622, NCM811, etc.)
• The specific numbers and owners of the core LFP patents that the IEA describes as having expired in 2022
• Numbers, applicants, and terms of LFP carbon-coating and doping improvement patents currently in force

Sources

1. IEA, Global EV Outlook 2024 – Trends in electric vehicle batteries
2. Google Patents, US5910382A – Cathode materials for secondary (rechargeable) lithium batteries
3. Batteries 2022, 8(10), 133 – Recent Development in Carbon-LiFePO4 Cathodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries: A Mini Review
4. H.-J. Noh, S. Youn, C. S. Yoon, Y.-K. Sun, Journal of Power Sources 233 (2013) 121-130 – Comparison of the structural and electrochemical properties of layered Li[NixCoyMnz]O2 cathode material

Related Reading — High-Nickel Cathodes: What Is the Price of Energy Density? · Electrolytes, From Liquid to Solid — The Trade-off Between Safety and Interface Resistance · Silicon Anode Materials — Why Only Small Amounts Are Still Blended In: The Volume-Expansion Wall and 2026 Commercialization Trends