SQ1912AEEH-T1_GE3 vs SQ1922EEH-T1_GE3 MOSFET Arrays: Detailed Component Comparison


Quick verdict

For low-current dual N-channel MOSFET switching applications requiring minimal gate charge and slightly lower on-resistance at moderate currents, the SQ1912AEEH-T1_GE3 is the better choice due to its lower typical R_DS(on) (0.2Ω vs 0.35Ω) and gate charge (1.25nC vs 1.2nC) that reduce switching losses and drive requirements. However, if your design demands higher continuous drain current (840mA vs 800mA), improved thermal margin up to 150°C junction temperature, and can tolerate higher gate resistance and input capacitance, the SQ1922EEH-T1_GE3 offers a more robust option for automotive-grade, higher-temperature environments or where slightly enhanced pulsed current capability is needed.


Spec comparison table

SpecSQ1912AEEH-T1_GE3SQ1922EEH-T1_GE3Notes
Configuration2 N-Channel (Dual)2 N-Channel (Dual)Same configuration, no difference.
Continuous drain current @ 25°C (I_D)800mA (Tc)840mA (Tc)SQ1922 has 5% higher continuous current rating, better for higher load currents.
Maximum pulsed drain current3A3AIdentical; no advantage.
Drain-source breakdown voltage (V_DS) max20V20VEqual rating.
Maximum junction temperature (T_J)175°C150°CSQ1912 supports higher TJ, better for high-temp applications.
Maximum power dissipation (P_D)1.5W1.5WEqual.
Typical R_DS(on) @ 4.5V, 25°C0.200Ω0.350ΩSQ1912 has ~43% lower R_DS(on), reducing conduction losses significantly.
Maximum R_DS(on)0.510Ω0.600ΩLower max R_DS(on) in SQ1912 improves worst-case conduction losses.
Minimum R_DS(on)0.280Ω0.600ΩSQ1912’s lower minimum resistance supports tighter design margins.
Gate charge (Q_g) @ 4.5V1.25nC (max)1.2nC (max)Comparable; SQ1922 slightly lower gate charge reduces gate drive losses.
Gate resistance (R_G) typical3kΩ4.5Ω – 13.7ΩSQ1922 has much lower gate resistance, enabling faster switching and better EMI.
Input capacitance (C_iss) @ 10V27pF50pFSQ1912 has significantly lower input capacitance, easing gate drive requirements.
Forward diode voltage (V_F) typical20mVNot specified precisely, ~0.5V at 0.5ASQ1912’s body diode forward voltage is much lower, reducing conduction losses in reverse conduction.
Turn-on delay time typical82ns15nsSQ1922 switches faster, better for high-speed switching.
Fall time typical487ns10nsSQ1922 has dramatically faster fall time, which benefits switching efficiency.
Zero gate voltage drain current (I_DSS) typical50µA50µASimilar leakage current.
Operating temperature range-55°C to 175°C-50°C to 150°CSQ1912 supports wider operating temperature range.
PackageSC-70-6SC-70-6Same package.
QualificationAEC-Q101AEC-Q101Both automotive qualified.

Design trade-offs

The SQ1912AEEH-T1_GE3 and SQ1922EEH-T1_GE3 target similar dual N-channel MOSFET array applications but differ significantly in switching speed, on-resistance, and thermal capabilities, which influence system design choices.

The SQ1912 offers a clear advantage in conduction losses with a typical R_DS(on) of 0.2Ω compared to 0.35Ω for the SQ1922 at room temperature. This difference translates into approximately 43% lower conduction losses in linear or low-frequency switching applications, beneficial for battery-powered, low-current switches or level shifters where efficiency and heat dissipation are critical. Additionally, the SQ1912’s lower input capacitance (27pF vs 50pF) reduces gate drive power consumption and switching losses, allowing simpler and lower-power gate drivers.

Conversely, the SQ1922 shines in switching speed and transient performance, with a turn-on delay time of 15ns and fall time of 10ns, significantly faster than the SQ1912’s 82ns and 487ns, respectively. This makes the SQ1922 more suitable for high-frequency switching applications where switching losses dominate. The SQ1922’s lower gate resistance (4.5Ω to 13.7Ω vs 1.5kΩ to 4.5kΩ) facilitates faster gate charging and discharging, enabling better switching performance and reduced EMI, at the cost of increased gate drive current requirements.

Thermally, the SQ1912 supports a higher maximum junction temperature (175°C vs 150°C), which is crucial for automotive or harsh environment designs. The SQ1922’s thermal impedance is slightly higher (220°C/W vs ~100µC/W in SQ1912 datasheet, though note units differ and need careful interpretation), and it may require more conservative derating or enhanced cooling.

From a layout standpoint, the SQ1912’s lower input capacitance and gate charge relax gate drive loop design and reduce EMI susceptibility, potentially simplifying PCB layout and reducing component count on the driver side. The SQ1922 demands a stronger gate driver and careful layout to handle higher switching speeds and gate currents without ringing or crosstalk.

Cost-wise, although not explicitly listed, the SQ1912’s older technology with higher R_G may be marginally less expensive. However, the performance trade-offs might justify the SQ1922’s higher gate drive complexity and more stringent layout requirements.


Use-case fit

Choose SQ1912AEEH-T1_GE3 when…

Choose SQ1922EEH-T1_GE3 when…


Drop-in compatibility

Both the SQ1912AEEH-T1_GE3 and SQ1922EEH-T1_GE3 are housed in the same SC-70-6 package and have the same pin count and configuration (dual N-channel MOSFET array). The datasheets do not explicitly confirm pin-to-pin compatibility, but given the identical package and configuration, they are likely footprint-compatible and pin-compatible.

However, electrical characteristics differ significantly, especially gate resistance and switching speed. Substituting one for the other without adjusting the gate driver or thermal design could lead to suboptimal performance or reliability issues. For example, replacing SQ1912 with SQ1922 requires ensuring the gate driver can handle the lower gate resistance and faster switching transitions. Conversely, replacing SQ1922 with SQ1912 may degrade switching speed and increase switching losses.

Because explicit compatibility confirmation is not provided, verify with the manufacturer or conduct bench testing before substitution in production.


Alternatives to consider


This technical comparison highlights the critical electrical and thermal trade-offs between the SQ1912AEEH-T1_GE3