Engineer’s comparison of Bergquist PCB vs Laird Tlam vs AIT Cool-Clad IMS: dielectric architecture, thermal resistance data, multilayer capability, automotive fit, and selection guide.

If you’re sourcing IMS PCB dielectric material for a new design and the spec simply says “thermally conductive aluminum PCB,” you’re in generic territory. The moment your application demands documented thermal performance, lot-traceable materials, or a published UL RTI rating, you’re shopping between named brands — and the three names that come up most often in serious power electronics and LED thermal discussions are Bergquist (Henkel), Laird, and AI Technology (AIT).

This Bergquist vs Laird IMS PCB comparison is written for engineers who need to make an actual selection decision — not a general overview of what IMS PCBs are, but a focused look at how these three product families differ in dielectric approach, thermal performance claims, application strengths, supply chain realities, and the factors that actually tip the decision one way or the other.

Understanding the Three Competitors: Company Context

Bergquist / Henkel — The Market Incumbent

Bergquist’s Thermal Clad family has been the reference point for IMS PCB materials for decades. After Henkel acquired Bergquist, the product line continued under the Bergquist brand within Henkel’s electronics division. The product families most engineers know by name — HPL, HT, MP, CML — are all Bergquist Thermal Clad products. The brand carries significant weight in automotive and LED lighting supply chains because their material specifications are published, tested to IEC and UL standards, and supported by widespread fabricator stocking.

Laird — The Tlam System Challenger

Laird’s IMS offering centers on the Tlam system — a thermally conductive PCB platform built around their Tlam PP (prepreg) dielectric materials. Laird positions Tlam as a system, not just a dielectric film: the same prepreg technology is used for single-sided Tlam SS boards, double-sided Tlam DS cores, and multilayer hybrid FR4/Tlam constructions. Laird is better known outside the PCB world for their broader thermal interface materials (gap fillers, phase-change pads, Tgrease products), which means their IMS PCB system sometimes gets less engineering attention than it deserves in head-to-head evaluations.

AI Technology (AIT) — The Flexible Dielectric Specialist

AI Technology, a New Jersey-based materials company, takes a different approach from both Bergquist and Laird. Their Cool-Clad IMS laminate family uses a flexible, non-woven dielectric insulating layer rather than the rigid ceramic-filled epoxy that both competitors use. AIT holds multiple US patents on this flexible thermal dielectric approach. The claimed advantages are zero internal stress, lower lamination pressure requirements (below 14 psi vs much higher for rigid dielectrics), and high-temperature stability to 300°C — important for reflow-intensive assembly processes and military or space applications where thermal cycling stress matters enormously.

Dielectric Technology Comparison: The Heart of the Difference

The dielectric layer is everything in IMS PCB performance. All three companies use ceramic fillers to push thermal conductivity above the 0.3 W/m·K baseline of unfilled epoxy, but their filler systems, carrier materials, and mechanical philosophies diverge in ways that matter for specific applications.

Dielectric Architecture Side-by-Side

Feature	Bergquist Thermal Clad	Laird Tlam	AIT Cool-Clad
Dielectric base	Ceramic-filled epoxy	Ceramic-filled epoxy	Flexible non-woven polymer
Filler system	Proprietary ceramic blend	Ceramic (1KA, HTD grades)	AlN, BN, Al₂O₃ blends
Glass fiber reinforcement	No	No (standard); available	No (by design)
Lamination pressure	Standard PCB press	Standard PCB press	Low-pressure (<14 psi)
Internal stress	Present	Present	Zero (patented claim)
High-temp reflow compatibility	To ~260°C	To ~260°C	To 300°C
Multilayer pre-preg available	Bond-Ply / CML series	Tlam PP (freestanding)	Cool-Clad pre-preg

AIT’s zero-internal-stress claim is the most significant architectural differentiator. Standard ceramic-filled epoxy dielectrics cure rigid and introduce residual stress between the copper foil, dielectric, and aluminum base — stress that accumulates over thermal cycles and can eventually cause delamination. AIT’s flexible dielectric absorbs this stress. In theory (and backed by their patent literature), this gives their laminates better long-term reliability under severe thermal cycling than rigid-dielectric competitors. Whether that matters in practice depends entirely on your cycle count and temperature range.

Thermal Performance Data Comparison

This is where engineers want numbers. The complication is that Bergquist, Laird, and AIT don’t all measure thermal performance identically — test method, sample geometry, and bondline thickness assumptions differ. Use these figures for order-of-magnitude comparison, not as interchangeable spec sheet values.

Thermal Conductivity and Resistance Comparison

Material / Product	Thermal Conductivity (dielectric)	Typical Dielectric Thickness	Thermal Resistance (approx.)	Breakdown Voltage
Bergquist HPL-03015	3.0 W/m·K	1.5 mil / 38 μm	0.09 °C·in²/W	2.5 kV AC
Bergquist HT-04503	2.2 W/m·K	3 mil / 76 μm	0.26 °C·in²/W	7 kV AC
Bergquist HT-09009	2.2 W/m·K	9 mil / 229 μm	0.90 °C·in²/W	20 kV AC
Laird Tlam PP 1KA	~1.5–2.0 W/m·K	3–6 mil options	Comparable to HT series	>5 kV DC
Laird Tlam PP HTD	~1.5 W/m·K	Up to 9 mil	Higher isolation focus	>5 kV DC
AIT Cool-Clad CXP	~2.0–3.0 W/m·K	3 mil / 75 μm	Low thermal resistance	>3 kV
AIT Cool-Clad ESP	~1.5–2.0 W/m·K	75 μm	Performance/reliability	>3 kV

One note on Laird’s Tlam PP performance: Laird positions it as offering 8–10x better thermal performance than FR4. Since standard FR4 sits at 0.3 W/m·K, this implies roughly 2.4–3.0 W/m·K effective performance — consistent with ceramic-filled epoxy systems in that thickness range. However, Laird’s published spec sheets are less granular than Bergquist’s on specific thermal resistance numbers, which can make direct comparison harder.

Application Fit: Where Each Brand Has Genuine Advantages

No single material brand wins every application. Here’s the honest breakdown of where each family tends to perform best in real design scenarios:

Bergquist Thermal Clad — Best For Certified Product Development

The Bergquist advantage is not purely thermal — it’s the documentation ecosystem around the product. Fabricators stock Bergquist material with lot traceability. UL certifications reference Bergquist product designations. Automotive Tier 1 suppliers often specify Bergquist by name in their approved material lists. When your board is going into a product that needs UL, CE, or automotive PPAP documentation, Bergquist’s established position in the compliance ecosystem reduces friction considerably. The Bergquist PCB material portfolio also covers the widest range of dielectric thicknesses, making it possible to match your isolation voltage requirement precisely rather than approximating.

Laird Tlam — Best For System-Level Thermal Flexibility

Laird’s real advantage is in the Tlam system’s multilayer and hybrid flexibility. The fact that Tlam PP is available as a freestanding prepreg means it can be incorporated into multilayer stack-ups alongside standard FR4 cores — a hybrid construction that puts thermally conductive dielectric exactly where the heat sources are while keeping standard FR4 cost elsewhere in the stack. For designers building power stages with complex control circuitry on the same board, this is genuinely useful. Laird’s 1KA prepreg works with copper foils from 0.5 oz to 4 oz and aluminum or copper base plates from 2.5mm to 6mm thick — thicker bases than most Bergquist configurations.

Laird’s HTD variant specifically targets high withstand voltage (>5,000V DC) combined with 150°C continuous operating temperature — similar territory to Bergquist HT-09009, and a reasonable alternative for applications where direct Bergquist sourcing is constrained.

AIT Cool-Clad — Best For Reliability-Critical and High-Temperature Assembly

AIT’s flexible dielectric approach is the most differentiated product in this comparison. The zero-stress claim, 300°C reflow tolerance, and low lamination pressure enable applications that rigid dielectric systems handle poorly: boards that see 1,000+ severe thermal cycles, military and aerospace assemblies where delamination failure modes are unacceptable, and boards with heavy copper (3–4 oz) where the CTE mismatch stress between thick copper and rigid dielectric is significant. AIT also explicitly supports die-attach and wire-bonding applications on their substrates — making Cool-Clad relevant for COB (chip-on-board) LED modules and power module assemblies that Bergquist and Laird don’t optimize for.

The trade-off: AIT’s supply chain is narrower. Fewer fabricators stock or process AIT materials compared to Bergquist, which adds lead time for prototype orders. For volume production in well-qualified supply chains, this matters less.

Head-to-Head Scoring Matrix

Evaluation Criterion	Bergquist (Henkel)	Laird Tlam	AIT Cool-Clad
Peak thermal conductivity available	★★★★☆ (4.5 W/m·K)	★★★☆☆ (~2.0 W/m·K)	★★★★☆ (~3.0 W/m·K)
Documentation / UL traceability	★★★★★	★★★☆☆	★★★☆☆
Multilayer / hybrid flexibility	★★★☆☆	★★★★★	★★★★☆
Thermal cycling reliability	★★★☆☆	★★★☆☆	★★★★★
High-temperature reflow (>260°C)	★★☆☆☆	★★☆☆☆	★★★★★
Fabricator availability (global)	★★★★★	★★★☆☆	★★☆☆☆
Cost competitiveness	★★★☆☆	★★★☆☆	★★★☆☆
Automotive supply chain presence	★★★★★	★★★☆☆	★★☆☆☆
Voltage isolation options	★★★★★	★★★★☆	★★★☆☆

Supply Chain and Sourcing Considerations

One dimension engineers don’t always evaluate early enough is supply chain risk. All three brands have concentration risks:

Bergquist/Henkel: Broadly stocked, but a single Henkel plant outage or allocation issue can ripple through multiple fabricators simultaneously. Post-acquisition quality concerns occasionally surface in engineer forums — verify that your fabricator is sourcing current production material and not old stock.

Laird: Now operating as Laird Performance Materials under DuPont after the 2019 acquisition. Organizational changes during large acquisitions sometimes create sourcing uncertainty. Confirm current stock and lead times directly with your fabricator before designing Tlam into a volume product.

AIT: Smaller company, US-based manufacturing, narrower distributor network. Lead time for initial prototype material can run longer than Bergquist. For volume production, AIT has qualified several contract fabricators — worth confirming the approved fabricator list for your region.

Practical Selection Framework

If you’re making the Bergquist vs Laird IMS PCB decision right now, here’s the decision tree most experienced engineers use:

Application Requirement	Recommended Material Family
Automotive, needs PPAP / UL file, high-voltage isolation	Bergquist HT series
General LED lighting, SELV-only, cost-sensitive	Bergquist HPL or generic equivalent
Multilayer power + control board, hybrid FR4/IMS	Laird Tlam PP 1KA
High-voltage isolation (>5kV DC) + 150°C continuous	Laird Tlam HTD or Bergquist HT-09009
Military, space, severe thermal cycling (>500 cycles)	AIT Cool-Clad CXP or ESP
COB LED or die-attach process, 300°C reflow	AIT Cool-Clad
Heavy copper (3–4 oz) with stress concern	AIT Cool-Clad

For applications not matching one of these specific requirements, Bergquist’s broad stock availability and documentation ecosystem make it the lowest-risk starting point. Only switch to Laird or AIT when a specific performance or process requirement genuinely can’t be met with Bergquist.

Useful Resources for IMS PCB Material Comparison

Resource	What It Provides
Henkel / Bergquist Thermal Clad Selection Guide	Full Bergquist product matrix including thermal, electrical, and UL data for HPL, HT, MP, and CML families
Laird Tlam Product Page	Laird Tlam system overview, 1KA vs HTD prepreg comparison, multilayer application notes
AIT Cool-Clad IMS Page	AIT Cool-Clad specifications, patent references, multilayer capability notes
IPC-4101 Standard	Base material classification for metal-core laminates
IEC 62758	Test methods for MCPCB thermal resistance — the standard all three brands should be tested against
Saturn PCB Toolkit	Free thermal resistance and trace width calculator to validate your stack-up choice

Frequently Asked Questions: Bergquist vs Laird IMS PCB

Q1: Can Laird Tlam PP prepreg be directly substituted for Bergquist Bond-Ply in a multilayer MCPCB design?

Structurally yes, both are thermally conductive B-stage prepreg films designed for multilayer assembly. However, lamination parameters differ — cure temperature, pressure, and press time are material-specific. A direct substitution requires revalidating the lamination process with your fabricator. Also confirm that your isolation voltage requirement is met: Bergquist Bond-Ply products and Laird Tlam PP 1KA have different breakdown voltage specs at comparable thicknesses. Don’t assume equivalence without checking the datasheet for your specific thickness.

Q2: Does AIT Cool-Clad work with standard PCB fabrication processes or does it require specialty equipment?

AIT designed Cool-Clad specifically to work with standard PCB fabrication equipment, with one important difference: the lamination pressure is significantly lower than for rigid ceramic-filled dielectrics (below 14 psi vs typical PCB press pressures). Fabricators experienced with standard aluminum MCPCBs may need to adjust their press profiles. AIT provides fabrication guidelines directly and maintains a list of qualified fabricators. The 300°C reflow tolerance means standard lead-free reflow processes work without modification.

Q3: Why is Bergquist so dominant in automotive IMS applications compared to Laird?

Bergquist’s automotive dominance is partly performance (the HT series covers the voltage and temperature requirements well) but mostly supply chain maturity. Automotive Tier 1 manufacturers built their PPAP documentation and qualification testing around Bergquist material. Substituting to Laird or AIT would require re-running qualification tests — a costly and time-consuming process that nobody initiates without a strong reason. In new automotive designs not yet in production, the choice is more open, but Bergquist’s established qualification infrastructure gives it an institutional advantage.

Q4: Which brand offers the best thermal performance at the lowest total thermal resistance?

For minimum thermal resistance (best heat flow), AIT Cool-Clad CXP with a 75 μm flexible dielectric at 2–3 W/m·K is competitive with Bergquist HPL at 3.0 W/m·K over 38 μm. The extremely thin Bergquist HPL-03015 (1.5 mil / 38 μm) still offers the lowest thermal resistance in its class among standard products — around 0.09 °C·in²/W. The caveat is that HPL’s breakdown voltage is only 2.5 kV AC, limiting it to low-voltage applications. For applications needing both low thermal resistance and meaningful isolation voltage, AIT’s 75 μm flexible dielectric represents a strong competing option.

Q5: Are there generic Chinese-sourced alternatives to Bergquist, Laird, and AIT that offer comparable performance?

Generic aluminum MCPCB laminates from Taiwanese and Chinese manufacturers (brands like Ventec, Iteq, and various OEM laminators) are widely used and cover most standard applications at lower cost. The functional gap between a reputable generic 2.0 W/m·K dielectric and Bergquist HT is smaller than the price gap. Where the named brands are genuinely non-substitutable is in traceability and certification support. Generic laminates typically cannot provide the lot-traceable CoC with UL file references that Bergquist provides, and their long-term thermal cycling reliability data is less comprehensive. For commercial LED lighting, generic laminates are common and generally adequate. For automotive, industrial certified, or military designs — the named brands are worth the premium.

Meta Description Suggestions:

Option A — Keyword-rich, 155 characters: Bergquist vs Laird IMS PCB compared: thermal conductivity, dielectric technology, voltage isolation, supply chain, and application fit across Bergquist, Laird Tlam, and AIT Cool-Clad.

Option B — Engineer-focused, 158 characters: Engineer’s comparison of Bergquist PCB vs Laird Tlam vs AIT Cool-Clad IMS: dielectric architecture, thermal resistance data, multilayer capability, automotive fit, and selection guide.

Option C — Longer variant (~215 characters): Choosing between Bergquist, Laird Tlam, and AIT Cool-Clad for your IMS PCB design? This engineer’s guide compares dielectric technology, thermal conductivity, breakdown voltage, supply chain maturity, and application fit with a practical decision framework.