1. Dynamic (Switching) Performance: While both devices exhibit similar Rds(on), their Gate Charge (Qg) differs substantially (17 nC vs. 40 nC). At the same switching frequency, driving the FCP380N60 requires higher peak drive current, results in slower switching speed, and incurs significantly higher switching losses. This has a decisive impact on power supply efficiency, thermal design, and EMI performance. 2. Input Capacitance (Ciss): The Ciss of the FCP380N60 is approximately 2.8 times that of the ST device (1665 pF vs. 590 pF). This directly explains its higher Qg and imposes stricter requirements on the driver’s peak current capability. Insufficient drive current will extend the Miller plateau duration, further increasing switching losses. 3. Technology Platform Characteristics: The ST device utilizes MDmesh™ M2-EP technology, which is optimized for a balanced trade-off between Qg and Rds(on), making it particularly suitable for high-efficiency switching applications. The Onsemi device employs SuperFET® II technology, which focuses more on reducing Rds(on) and enhancing avalanche ruggedness. In this comparison, however, its Qg specification is a clear disadvantage. This reflects the underlying design priorities of each platform for different application scenarios—high-frequency operation versus high robustness.