LG Energy Solution reported H1 2026 utilization of 52.8%. Samsung SDI reported 73%. SK On filed 36.4%. These cannot be ranked; they measure different quantities against different denominators.
LG's rate is value-based: production value divided by capacity value across all facilities and chemistries. Samsung's is a unit count at two small-cell plants, Cheonan and Tianjin, excluding EV, ESS, and all US operations entirely. SK On's is time-based: load hours divided by operating hours, unrelated to GWh throughput. The 94.3 GWh nameplate capacity SK On separately discloses is not the denominator in its filed rate.
A standardized rate would still measure cost absorption pressure on the manufacturer rather than procurable supply. Idle capacity may sit in an unconverted chemistry, an unqualified line, a FEOC-noncompliant facility, or behind existing customer commitments. Track each company's rate over time as a financial stress signal. None of these figures tells you what is available to buy.
| LG | Samsung | SK On | |
|---|---|---|---|
| H1 2026 | 52.8% | 73% | 36.4% |
| Basis | Value | Units | Time |
| Scope | All facilities, all products | Small-cell only (Cheonan + Tianjin) | Load hrs / operating hrs |
What LG omits: Site-level or segment-level breakdown; ESS lines in Ohio, Tennessee, Lansing not separable from EV
What Samsung omits: StarPlus EV/ESS (Indiana), European EV, any US ESS conversion output; the 73% reflects small-battery recovery, not ESS demand
What SK On omits: GWh-based utilization; 94.3 GWh nameplate and 89.475M cells produced are filed separately but are not inputs to the 36.4%
LG data conflict: One secondary source reports 57.8%, matching LG's full-year 2024 rate; filing-based sources (Yonhap, Edaily) confirm 52.8% for H1 2026
All figures from H1 2026 regulatory filings (DART/KRX) or named agency reporting from those filings.