News
Tesla 4680 cells compared with BYD Blade and CATL Qilin structural batteries
The battle for the dominance of the electric vehicle sector would likely be determined by the market’s key battery makers. With this in mind, companies such as BYD, CATL, and Tesla — all of whom are exploring the structural battery form factor — have the chance to become the trailblazers of the next generation of electric car batteries.
During its Battery Day event, Tesla announced its 4680 cells, which are used alongside the company’s structural battery pack. BYD, on the other hand, has also released its Blade batteries, which also adopt a non-modular approach. CATL’s Qilin batteries are in the same segment, with its structural battery design.
Electric vehicle battery enthusiast Jordan Giesige of YouTube’s The Limiting Factor channel recently conducted a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Tesla, BYD, and CATL’s next-generation structural packs. Each battery pack was evaluated according to several factors, such as design, rigidity, packing and energy density, and safety, before being ranked. It should be noted that the figures used in the comparisons are drawn from estimates and materials released by Tesla, BYD, and CATL themselves, not current real-world observations.
As noted by Giesige, Tesla’s 4680 structural battery packs utilize hundreds of cylindrical cells with a cooling ribbon in between every other row of cells. A lid is then placed on top and polyurethane foam is injected into the pack. This polyurethane hardens, and the combination of the foam and the battery cells forms a rigid, honeycomb-type structure.
CATL Qilin batteries, which could be fitted with both nickel and iron-based cells, integrate thermal pads, the liquid cooling plate, and the cross bracing to create what could be described as structural cooling. The structural cooling is placed between each row of prismatic battery cells, and the cells themselves are placed into the pack directly without any modules. BYD Blade batteries use iron-based prismatic cells, though these cells are longer and thinner than those used by CATL. The cells are then stretched across the BYD Blade battery pack, allowing the cells themselves to replace conventional steel beams.
In the rankings of the next-generation batteries, the YouTube host noted that Tesla’s 4680 structural battery pack would likely be the most rigid among its peers. Tesla’s 4680 pack loses out in terms of packing density, however, as BYD and CATL’s use of prismatic cells maximizes volumetric energy density. With this in mind, and considering that CATL’s Qilin batteries can be fitted with high-energy density nickel-based cells, a nickel-based Qilin battery would likely be more energy dense than a nickel-based Tesla 4680 pack or a BYD Blade structural battery, which uses less energy dense iron-based cells.
As for cooling, Giesige noted that the BYD Blade batteries’ plate cooling would likely fall short of the Tesla 4680 pack and CATL Qilin battery’s cooling systems. In its marketing materials, CATL highlighted that cooling the sides of the Qilin battery increases the pack’s cooling area four times. Tesla’s 4680 battery also uses better cooling than BYD’s Blade batteries with its side cooling system, though it would likely not be as good as the cooling of CATL’s Qilin structural packs.
While BYD’s Blade batteries lose out in cooling, they are also likely the safest among its peers. This is because the BYD Blade battery uses iron-based cells, which have a higher decomposition and lower heat release temperature than the nickel-based cells used in Tesla’s 4680 cells and CATL’s nickel-based Qilin batteries. An iron-based Qilin battery comes second to the BYD Blade, partly due to its use of shorter and thicker prismatic cells, which may trap more heat.
A Qilin pack with nickel-based cells was ranked last in terms of safety by the battery enthusiast, as Tesla’s 4680 pack with nickel-based cells features several safety systems, such as an overpressure mechanism on the bottom of the cells themselves. Since 4680 cells are also smaller than the prismatic cells used in the BYD Blade and CATL Qilin, they contain less energy. The 4680 cells themselves are enclosed in a thick shell as well, which are about 2-3 times thicker than a conventional battery.
Overall, Giesige noted that Tesla’s 4680 cells are likely the best all-rounder compared to its peers in the structural battery segment. The overall scores of the BYD Blade and CATL Qilin batteries bode well for Tesla’s future, however, as the companies could become suppliers of the EV maker in the future. CATL is already supplying Tesla with LFP batteries today, and BYD is heavily rumored to be a Tesla supplier as well. In a way, the analysis of the next-generation structural EV batteries shows that Tesla is not alone in pushing the battery industry forward.
Watch The Limiting Factor‘s full analysis in the video below.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Investor's Corner
Tesla (TSLA) Q4 and FY 2025 earnings results
Tesla’s Q4 and FY 2025 earnings come on the heels of a quarter where the company produced over 434,000 vehicles, delivered over 418,000 vehicles, and deployed 14.2 GWh of energy storage products.
Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) has released its Q4 and FY 2025 earnings results in an update letter. The document was posted on the electric vehicle maker’s official Investor Relations website after markets closed today, January 28, 2025.
Tesla’s Q4 and FY 2025 earnings come on the heels of a quarter where the company produced over 434,000 vehicles, delivered over 418,000 vehicles, and deployed 14.2 GWh of energy storage products.
For the Full Year 2025, Tesla produced 1,654,667 and delivered 1,636,129 vehicles. The company also deployed a total of 46.7 GWh worth of energy storage products.
Tesla’s Q4 and FY 2025 results
As could be seen in Tesla’s Q4 and FY 2025 Update Letter, the company posted GAAP EPS of $0.24 and non-GAAP EPS of $0.50 per share in the fourth quarter. Tesla also posted total revenues of $24.901 billion. GAAP net income is also listed at $840 million in Q4.
Analyst consensus for Q4 has Tesla earnings per share falling 38% to $0.45 with revenue declining 4% to $24.74 billion, as per estimates from FactSet. In comparison, the consensus compiled by Tesla last week forecasted $0.44 per share on sales totaling $24.49 billion.
For FY 2025, Tesla posted GAAP EPS of $1.08 and non-GAAP EPS of $1.66 per share. Tesla also posted total revenues of $94.827 billion, which include $69.526 billion from automotive and $12.771 billion from the battery storage business. GAAP net income is also listed at $3.794 billion in FY 2025.
xAI Investment
On January 16, 2026, Tesla agreed to invest approximately $2 billion to acquire Series E preferred shares in xAI as part of the company’s recently disclosed financing round. Tesla said the investment was made on market terms consistent with those agreed to by other participants in the round.
The investment aligns with Tesla’s strategy under Master Plan Part IV, which centers on bringing artificial intelligence into the physical world through products and services. While Tesla focuses on real-world AI applications, xAI is developing digital AI platforms, including its Grok large language model.
Alongside the investment, Tesla and xAI entered into a framework agreement designed to build on their existing relationship. The agreement establishes a structure for evaluating potential AI collaborations between the two companies, with an emphasis on advancing applied AI capabilities.
Tesla said the investment and framework agreement are intended to strengthen its ability to develop and deploy AI-driven products and services at scale. The transaction remains subject to customary regulatory approvals, with closing expected in the first quarter of 2026.
Below is Tesla’s Q4 and FY 2025 update letter.
TSLA-Q4-2025-Update by Simon Alvarez
Tesla has rolled out a new Supercharging safety feature in the United States, one that will answer concerns that some owners may have if they need to leave in a pinch.
It is also a suitable alternative for non-Tesla chargers, like third-party options that feature J1772 or CCS to NACS adapters.
The feature has been available in Europe for some time, but it is now rolling out to Model 3 and Model Y owners in the U.S.
With Software Update 2026.2.3, Tesla is launching the Unlatching Charge Cable function, which will now utilize the left rear door handle to release the charging cable from the port. The release notes state:
“Charging can now be stopped and the charge cable released by pulling and holding the rear left door handle for three seconds, provided the vehicle is unlocked, and a recognized key is nearby. This is especially useful when the charge cable doesn’t have an unlatch button. You can still release the cable using the vehicle touchscreen or the Tesla app.”
The feature was first spotted by Not a Tesla App.
This is an especially nice feature for those who commonly charge at third-party locations that utilize plugs that are not NACS, which is the Tesla standard.
For example, after plugging into a J1772 charger, you will still be required to unlock the port through the touchscreen, which is a minor inconvenience, but an inconvenience nonetheless.
Additionally, it could be viewed as a safety feature, especially if you’re in need of unlocking the charger from your car in a pinch. Simply holding open the handle on the rear driver’s door will now unhatch the port from the car, allowing you to pull it out and place it back in its housing.
This feature is currently only available on the Model 3 and Model Y, so Model S, Model X, and Cybertruck owners will have to wait for a different solution to this particular feature.
News
LG Energy Solution pursuing battery deal for Tesla Optimus, other humanoid robots: report
Optimus is expected to be one of Tesla’s most ambitious projects, with Elon Musk estimating that the humanoid robot could be the company’s most important product.
A recent report has suggested that LG Energy Solution is in discussions to supply batteries for Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot.
Optimus is expected to be one of Tesla’s most ambitious projects, with Elon Musk estimating that the humanoid robot could be the company’s most important product.
Humanoid robot battery deals
LG Energy Solution shares jumped more than 11% on the 28th after a report from the Korea Economic Daily claimed that the company is pursuing battery supply and joint development agreements with several humanoid robot makers. These reportedly include Tesla, which is developing Optimus, as well as multiple Chinese robotics companies.
China is already home to several leading battery manufacturers, such as CATL and BYD, making the robot makers’ reported interest in LG Energy Solution quite interesting. Market participants interpreted the reported outreach as a signal that performance requirements for humanoid robots may favor battery chemistries developed by companies like LG.
LF Energy Solution vs rivals
According to the report, energy density is believed to be the primary reason humanoid robot developers are evaluating LG Energy Solution’s batteries. Unlike electric vehicles, humanoid robots have significantly less space available for battery packs while requiring substantial power to operate dozens of joint motors and onboard artificial intelligence processors.
LG Energy Solution’s ternary lithium batteries offer higher energy density compared with rivals’ lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, which are widely used by Chinese EV manufacturers. That advantage could prove critical for humanoid robots, where runtime, weight, and compact packaging are key design constraints.
Tesla (TSLA) Q4 and FY 2025 earnings results
Tesla rolls out new Supercharging safety feature in the U.S.
