Comparing passives in practice: in common electronics applications (especially at board and IC level), is it generally accurate to say inductors are less versatile than capacitors?

Introduction / Context:
Both capacitors and inductors are fundamental energy-storage elements, yet their practical usage breadth differs in typical electronic products. This item targets a qualitative comparison frequently taught in introductory courses and observed in mainstream PCB and IC design.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• “Versatility” refers to the variety of roles in common circuits: coupling, decoupling, filtering, timing, energy storage, impedance shaping.
• Practical constraints such as size, cost, DC resistance, and electromagnetic interference are considered.
• Focus on low-to-mid frequency analog/digital electronics rather than specialized high-power or magnetics domains.

Concept / Approach:
Capacitors are broadly used for power-supply decoupling, AC coupling, timing (RC), oscillator networks, sample-and-hold, and DC blocking, and they integrate well on silicon. Inductors, while essential in switch-mode power supplies, RF matching, and chokes, are bulkier, harder to integrate, have parasitic resistance and core losses, and can radiate/receive EMI. Consequently, across a wide range of everyday designs, capacitors play more roles and are easier to deploy, which underpins the teaching shorthand that inductors are “less versatile.”

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Survey any digital board’s BOM: capacitors dominate counts for decoupling and timing; inductors are fewer, typically tied to power stages or EMI filters.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Incorrect: overlooks pervasive capacitor use and inductor constraints.
Only at RF or only for ideal parts: the observation spans many frequency regimes and real components.

Common Pitfalls:
Interpreting “less versatile” as “less important”; conflating specialization (power magnetics, RF inductors) with overall breadth of use.

Final Answer:
Correct