A Practical, Technology‐Agnostic Framework For Shockley–Queisser Benchmarking of Solar Cells: Robust Bandgap Definitions and Loss Decomposition From EQE, Electroluminescence, and J –

ABSTRACT

Shockley–Queisser (SQ) benchmarking is used to contextualize photovoltaic (PV) efficiencies, but it is often misapplied when devices deviate from the step‐function absorber idealization or when optical, radiative, and electrical losses are mixed. Here, we present a practical workflow that begins with a stated SQ reference and measured external quantum efficiency (EQE), electroluminescence quantum efficiency (), and current‐density–voltage (–) data. The framework defines a photovoltaic bandgap (), computes EQE‐based radiative dark current and open‐circuit voltage, and separates generation/current loss, optical étendue, radiative edge‐shape loss, nonradiative recombination, temperature, shunt, and fill‐factor losses. It applies across silicon, gallium arsenide, copper indium gallium selenide, halide perovskites, organic PVs, and transition‐metal dichalcogenides. We provide an interpretation order for the short‐circuit‐current factor (), radiative‐emission factor (), luminescence factor (), and fill‐factor ratio (). In this notation, is not an electrical/nonradiative loss; for a stated step‐SQ reference and a properly defined , it corresponds to a positive radiative edge‐shape voltage loss, whereas inconsistent factors indicate the measured‐EQE detailed balance should be reported. This ordering makes closeness‐to‐limit claims reproducible and comparable across materials, architectures, optical references, and measurement states.