If you follow the new energy sector, you’ll notice a clear trend: the “intense competition” in the energy storage industry has shifted from system integration down to its core component – the battery cell. Just two years ago, the industry was debating the pros and cons of 280Ah and 314Ah cells; now, the market is flooded with large-format options like 392Ah, 587Ah, 684Ah, and even 1175Ah, resembling an unspoken “arms race.”
The most watched showdown in this race? It’s between Sungrow (the “King of Energy Storage”) and CATL (the “Lithium Battery Giant”). One excels at defining products based on user needs, while the other controls nearly 40% of the global energy storage battery cell market. Their choices will likely shape the energy storage industry’s technical direction for the next 3–5 years. Today, we’ll break down the logic behind this “spec war” and its potential impact on new energy professionals – even those in the e-commerce space.
I. Why Is Everyone Chasing “Larger Battery Cells”?
Before diving into the corporate rivalry, let’s clarify a key question: Why is every player pursuing “higher-capacity” battery cells? The answer is straightforward – cost reduction and efficiency improvement – the core goals of all commercial competition.
For energy storage systems (ESS), the number of battery cells directly affects overall costs:
- A single 684Ah large cell can replace more than two 314Ah small cells. This not only reduces the number of cells purchased but also cuts costs for supporting components like cables, BMS (Battery Management System) modules, and monitoring devices.
- Fewer parts mean faster assembly and lower labor costs. For example, EVE Energy noted that its 628Ah cell production line achieves “4 battery packs assembled per minute and 5MWh of output per day” – over 30% more efficient than small-cell lines.
Additionally, large cells meet the growing demand for long-duration energy storage (typically defined as storage lasting 4+ hours, critical for solar farms and grid peak-shaving). HyperStrong’s 1175Ah cell, for instance, was specifically designed for long-duration scenarios; higher capacity translates to longer runtime per charge, aligning with future energy storage needs.
The problem? There’s no unified standard for “large.” Every company wants its spec to become the “industry benchmark” – because whoever controls the standard controls supply chain 话语权 (discourse power) and pricing power. This is the core of Sungrow and CATL’s showdown.
II. Sungrow vs. CATL: Two Strategies, One Goal
The competition between Sungrow and CATL is essentially a clash of “demand-driven” vs. “technology-driven” approaches. Their tactics differ sharply, but both aim to define industry standards.
Sungrow: It Doesn’t Make Cells – But It Writes the Rules
Many people don’t realize: Sungrow doesn’t manufacture battery cells itself. However, it is one of the world’s largest buyers of ESS – in 2024, its global ESS shipments reached 28GWh, consuming tens of millions of cells. This “big buyer” status gives it the leverage to define cells from the “application end.”
In June this year, Sungrow officially launched the 684Ah cell spec, integrating it into its new PowerTitan 3.0 energy storage platform. Its strategy is clever:
- Focus on practicality: It emphasizes the 684Ah cell as the “first mass-producible large-format cell,” using a dedicated stacking process to achieve a cycle life of over 15,000 cycles (vs. ~10,000 cycles for ordinary cells). It also solved large-cell safety risks with “thermal-electrical separation” technology.
- Partner with mid-sized/small cell manufacturers: Instead of building factories, Sungrow collaborates with downstream cell makers. For smaller manufacturers, Sungrow’s massive orders are a “safety net” – REPT BATTERO, for example, directly launched a 684Ah cell, stating it “mainly supplies Sungrow,” with Sungrow even covering part of the production line upgrade costs.
- Speak to customer needs: As a system integrator, Sungrow understands client pain points better – e.g., power plant operators care about “cost per kWh of storage,” while commercial users focus on “equipment footprint.” Its 684Ah cell boosts the ESS’s “energy density per unit area by 20%,” directly addressing these needs.
CATL: Dominance in Hand – “My Spec Is the Trend”
If Sungrow defines standards based on demand, CATL defines them based on technology. According to data from South Korea’s SNE Research, CATL held a 36.5% global market share in energy storage battery cell shipments in 2024 (ranking first for 4 consecutive years), with annual energy storage revenue exceeding RMB 57 billion. This scale gives it enough clout to lead technical routes.
Also in June, CATL hosted its “Energy Storage 587 Technology Day” and announced the mass production of its 587Ah cell. Its logic is clear:
- Emphasize the “optimal balance”: CATL didn’t chase extreme capacity; instead, it framed the 587Ah cell as the “best balance for the current stage” – it reduces costs while remaining compatible with existing production lines (no need for full overhauls).
- Reserve room for upgrades: It explicitly stated that “the 587Ah cell will be produced stably for a period, with larger-capacity versions to follow,” hinting it controls the pace of technical iteration.
- A dominant mindset: As the “elder statesman” of the lithium battery industry, CATL is accustomed to setting standards. For CATL, Sungrow’s 684Ah spec feels more like a “challenge” than “competition” – after all, its clients include major global energy storage firms; as long as it stands firm, the 587Ah cell has a solid market foundation.
III. Beyond the Duo: The Entire Industry Is Betting on Large Cells
Sungrow and CATL’s rivalry is just the tip of the iceberg – the entire energy storage supply chain is now caught up in the “spec war”:
- Traditional cell manufacturers: EVE Energy launched the 628Ah cell, SVOLT the 720Ah, and Sunwoda the 630Ah. All highlight “large cells + CTP (cell-to-pack)” integration solutions, targeting 10–15% cost reductions.
- Cross-sector players: CRRC Zhuzhou Institute has seized energy storage market share via “low-price bids” and partnered with Lishen (a state-owned enterprise) to launch a 600Ah dedicated cell, emphasizing “stable state-owned supply chains.”
- Mid-sized/small manufacturers: To avoid obsolescence, many second- and third-tier cell makers are forced to “choose sides” – either follow Sungrow for 684Ah or CATL for 587Ah. Some even develop both specs, fearing they’ll miss out.
The most extreme example is HyperStrong, which launched a 1175Ah “super-large cell.” While mass production timelines are unclear, this “extreme spec” reflects industry anxiety: without differentiated offerings, companies risk being eliminated in this battle.
IV. The Truth: The “Spec War” Is Actually a “Discourse Power War”
Many call this a “technical route dispute,” but at its core, it’s a battle for industry discourse power.
- Need for brand premium: Launching “exclusive specs” quickly builds a “technological leadership” image. For example, some manufacturers display over a dozen large-cell samples at trade shows, but their actual production still focuses on 280Ah and 314Ah cells. These “concept cells” are mostly for attracting attention, proving they “keep up with trends.”
- A way to lock in the supply chain: For large firms, pushing their spec to become the standard ensures upstream material suppliers and downstream assemblers revolve around them. Sungrow’s 684Ah partnerships, for instance, bind a group of cell makers; CATL’s 587Ah keeps existing clients dependent on its supply chain.
- Squeezing competitors’ space: Upgrading production lines requires huge investments (equipment updates, process adjustments, staff training). If a company can force rivals to adapt to its pace, it disrupts their capacity plans. This echoes the 2019–2024 “182mm vs. 210mm wafer war” in the PV industry, where many small firms collapsed because they couldn’t keep up with retooling.
V. Will Energy Storage Repeat PV’s “Old Path”?
If you’re familiar with new energy, this will feel déjà vu – it’s a carbon copy of the PV industry’s 2019–2024 “wafer size war.”
Back then, PV companies raced from 166mm to 182mm to 210mm wafers, releasing new specs annually. This forced module and inverter makers to retool frequently, wasting massive resources. Today, the energy storage industry seems poised to repeat this mistake.
Why? It’s not that Chinese new energy firms lack innovation – it’s the hyper-competitive environment that forces “involution”. Everyone knows “unified specs would benefit the industry,” but no one wants their spec to be 淘汰 (obsolete). The result is a “catch-up” cycle no one can escape.
For ordinary people – especially e-commerce sellers and entrepreneurs in the new energy space – this war offers key takeaways:
- In the short term, don’t blindly follow “large-cell products.” First, check if the manufacturer has a stable supply chain (e.g., long-term partnerships with cell makers).
- Prioritize “compatibility”: If specs unify in the future, can your current equipment be upgraded? Avoid obsolescence.
- Long-term, specs will eventually converge. The real winners will be products that “balance cost, safety, and compatibility” – not just those with the “largest capacity.”
Final Question: How Long Will This War Last?
The PV wafer war lasted 5 years before stabilizing into a dual structure of 182mm and 210mm. The energy storage battery cell war will likely take 3–5 years to settle. In that time, some companies will rise, and others will fall.
But no matter who wins, the entire industry will ultimately benefit – competition drives cost reductions and technical progress. Cheaper, more efficient energy storage products will accelerate the adoption of new energy.
What do you think? Will Sungrow’s 684Ah or CATL’s 587Ah become the future mainstream? If your business involves energy storage products, how will you choose? Share your thoughts in the comments!