Capacitor technology comparison: considering typical constructions and applications, is the blanket claim that “ceramic capacitors have higher voltage ratings than electrolytic capacitors” correct?

Introduction / Context:
Designers choose capacitor types based on voltage rating, capacitance per volume, ESR, polarity, and reliability. A common misconception is that one class (ceramic) universally supports higher voltages than another (electrolytic). This question asks whether that blanket statement is correct in practical electronics contexts.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Comparing mainstream multilayer ceramic capacitors (MLCCs) and aluminum electrolytics.
• Voltage rating refers to the specified maximum working voltage under standard conditions.
• No special-purpose niche parts implied (e.g., exotic HV ceramics vs ultra-HV electrolytics).

Concept / Approach:
Voltage rating is a function of dielectric strength, layer thickness, construction, and package clearance. Aluminum electrolytics commonly span 6.3 V to 450 V (and beyond in some series). MLCCs are widely available from 6.3 V to a few hundred volts; specialty ceramic discs/stacks can reach kV, but so can certain film or electrolytic designs. Therefore, there is no universal ordering in which “ceramic > electrolytic” for voltage rating. The claim, as an absolute rule, is incorrect.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Surveying supplier parametric tables shows electrolytic and ceramic parts offered across broad, overlapping ranges; selection depends on series and manufacturer, not solely on dielectric type.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“True only below 10 V / above 1 kV / depends only on capacitance” each oversimplifies; voltage rating depends on construction and series, not just C value or a fixed threshold.

Common Pitfalls:
Generalizing from a limited lab kit; ignoring derating and package size effects on rating.

Final Answer:
Incorrect