Tokamak vs Stellarator vs ICF vs Magnetic Target Fusion
Fusion Approach Comparison
Comparison of the 4 leading fusion confinement approaches — plasma stability, construction complexity, cost, and timeline to net power.
TokamakStellaratorICF (Laser)MTF
Full Specification Comparison
| Specification | Tokamak | Stellarator | ICF (Laser) | MTF |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Confinement | Magnetic (toroidal) | Magnetic (3D coils) | Inertial (lasers) | Magnetic + compression |
| Plasma Stability | Good (pulsed) | Excellent (steady) | N/A | Moderate |
| Net Energy Gain | Not yet | Not yet | Yes (Q=4.13) | Not yet |
| Construction Cost | $5-20B | $5-15B | $3.5B (NIF) | $0.5-2B |
| Commercial Timeline | 2040-2050 | 2045-2055 | 2050+ | 2035-2045 |
| Key Players | ITER, CFS, Tokamak Energy | Wendelstein 7-X, Helical | NIF, LLNL | General Fusion |
| Fuel Type | D-T | D-T | D-T | D-T |
Expert Verdict
Tokamaks are the most mature with ITER on track; stellarators offer superior stability but are harder to build; ICF proved net gain but lacks a power plant path; MTF is the dark horse.
Subject Breakdown
Tokamak
0 Category Wins
Stellarator
0 Category Wins
ICF (Laser)
1 Category Wins
- ★ Net Energy Gain: Yes (Q=4.13)
MTF
1 Category Wins
- ★ Construction Cost: $0.5-2B