The AEC-Q200 Qualification Report Is 1 of 3 Documents a German Tier 1 Will Ask For

Ask for the AEC-Q200 qualification report, the PPAP submission package and the lot-level certificate of conformity — three separate documents, not one AEC-Q200 badge. We checked all 451 pages of the 28 Walsin Technology datasheets we hold for a German Tier 1’s own vocabulary: zero pages say PPAP, IATF 16949, VDA or IMDS.

---

Venatech Limited, an authorised Walsin distributor in Hong Kong, is an authorised distributor for Walsin Technology (Walsin). We hold 28 Walsin datasheets totalling 451 pages and the full automotive MLCC parametric export — 01_Automotive_MT.xlsx, 02_Automotive_MG.xlsx, 04_Automotive_SoftTerm_ST.xlsx and 03_Automotive_SoftTerm_VT.xlsx. We have already published the full breakdown of how Walsin words AEC-Q200 across those 451 pages in AEC-Q200 compliant is not certified: the qualification report to ask for. This post takes a narrower, more specific cut: the exact three documents a German Tier 1’s supplier-quality department will actually request, in the vocabulary that department uses, and which of the three we hold today. Every count below is ours, re-measured from the files named, and every part number is real.

What is an AEC-Q200 qualification report, and why isn’t a datasheet one?

A datasheet states the limit a part must meet; a qualification report states which lot was tested, how many pieces, on what date, by whom, and what the measured result was against that limit. We searched all 451 Walsin datasheet pages for “qualification report”, “test report” and “sample size” and found zero occurrences of any of the three. Walsin’s approval sheets print the AEC-Q200 test-condition tables — the limits — on 42 of those pages, across the MT, ST, VT and RT series. None of the 42 pages carries a sample count, a lot identifier or a test date. A German Tier 1’s incoming-quality team is trained to ask for the second document, not the first, and the two are easy to conflate because they both have “AEC-Q200” printed on the cover.

What does Walsin’s own wording say about AEC-Q200 across our 451 pages?

Walsin writes “qualified” and “compliant,” never “certified,” as a positive claim. We counted the exact phrase across all 451 pages ourselves: “Qualified to AEC-Q200” appears 27 times across 5 files, “AEC-Q200 qualified” twice across 2 files, “AEC-Q200 compliant” twice across 2 files, and “meet AEC-Q200 requirement” once. The word “certification” sits next to AEC-Q200 exactly 6 times in the whole library, and all 6 read “without AEC-Q200 Certification” — the MG series heading in 00_MLCC_Full_Catalogue.pdf. There is no instance anywhere in our 451 pages of AEC-Q200 paired with the word “certified” or “certification” in the positive.

Wording Walsin actually prints	Occurrences we counted	Files
Qualified to AEC-Q200	27	5
AEC-Q200 qualified	2	2
AEC-Q200 compliant	2	2
meet AEC-Q200 requirement	1	1
AEC-Q200 … certification	6, all read “without”	1 (MG heading)

Why does a Hong Kong MLCC distributor check for PPAP, IATF 16949, VDA and IMDS?

Because those four words, not “AEC-Q200,” are what a German Tier 1’s supplier-quality scorecard actually names. We searched all 451 pages for “PPAP,” “IATF 16949,” “VDA” and “IMDS,” spelled out and as acronyms, and found zero of any of the four. We also searched for “production part approval,” “material declaration” and “process audit” in full and found zero of those too. This is a different, narrower check than the generic “qualification report / test report / sample size” search above — it targets the exact German automotive-quality nomenclature, and it comes back empty in the same way. We have not seen this specific set of four words checked against Walsin’s own documentation anywhere else.

What are the exact three documents to request, and who actually holds each one?

Three documents, and we hold exactly one of them today. The series approval sheet with the AEC-Q200 test-condition tables ships from us the same day, because it is already in the 451 pages. The AEC-Q200 qualification report by exact part number is Walsin’s document, and nothing has been requested from Walsin in writing yet — it sits on our request list, not in our filing cabinet. The PPAP submission package, including any IMDS material declaration, is a third document again: the series approval sheet does not contain it, and neither does any other page we hold.

Document	Who issues it	Do we hold it?	Match / mismatch against a German Tier 1 incoming pack
Series approval sheet with AEC-Q200 requirement tables	Walsin	Yes — 42 pages across MT, ST, VT, RT	Match — ships the same day by email
AEC-Q200 qualification report, by exact part number	Walsin	No	Mismatch — on our request list; Walsin’s document, Walsin’s timing
PPAP submission package (incl. IMDS material declaration)	Walsin	No — zero of 451 pages name PPAP or IMDS	Mismatch — not in any Walsin document we hold; ask Walsin directly

Lot and date-code traceability and a certificate of conformity per shipment are ours to issue on request — they travel with the delivered reel, not with the part’s qualification status, so they sit outside this three-document list rather than substituting for any of it.

Does the series name decide AEC-Q200 status, or does the exported data?

The series name, every time — the electrical fields will not tell you. We filtered the automotive MLCC export to 0402, 100 nF, X7R or X5R, 16 Vdc, and the three series that sell at that point disagree only on the series name and the dielectric.

Part number	Series (as exported)	Dielectric	Capacitance	Rated voltage	L × W × T (mm)	Match / mismatch on AEC-Q200
MT15B104K160	Automotive Caps Qualified to AEC-Q200 (MT series)	X7R	100 nF	16 Vdc	1.00±0.05 × 0.50±0.05 × 0.50±0.05	Qualified by series name
MG15X104K100	Automotive Caps Without AEC-Q200 Certification (MG series)	X5R	100 nF	10 Vdc	1.00±0.05 × 0.50±0.05 × 0.50±0.05	Not qualified — identical footprint, different dielectric
ST15B104K160	Automotive Soft term Caps Qualified to AEC-Q200 (ST series)	X7R	100 nF	16 Vdc	1.00±0.20 × 0.50±0.20 × 0.50±0.20	Qualified, but wider mechanical tolerance from the soft-termination polymer

MT15B104K160 and MG15X104K100 share the same case size, the same mechanical tolerance and the same rated voltage. The qualification claim lives in the Series column, not in a flag, a checkbox or a number anywhere else in the row. A buyer filtering the export on electrical fields alone cannot see the difference that a German audit will ask about first.

What should a buyer in Germany do with this, in what order?

Three steps, in the order a supplier-quality review actually runs. None of the 1,125 part numbers on our Hong Kong ready-stock snapshot, dated 23 September 2026, sits in the MT, MG or ST series — automotive MLCC here is a production order, not a shelf pull, so this is a documentation conversation to start early, not a stock check to leave late.

1. Ask for the series approval sheet first, by series name — MT, MG or ST. It ships the same day and carries the AEC-Q200 requirement tables, so engineering can start reading limits immediately.
2. Ask for the AEC-Q200 qualification report by the exact part number, and ask who issued it and when. If anyone hands you a document headed “AEC-Q200 Certificate,” read the heading again — no Walsin document we hold uses that word in the positive.
3. Ask for the PPAP package and any IMDS declaration separately, by name, because the approval sheet does not contain either. Cross the rest of the automotive line in one pass using the free cross-reference tool, filtered to automotive grade, and check ready stock before committing a production slot.

The MT, MG and ST series are compared field by field, with the full automotive shelf and the 656-cell tolerance defect in the MG export, in automotive MLCC without AEC-Q200: MT vs MG, field by field. The automotive MLCC range sits on the Walsin MLCC products page.

The short version

AEC-Q200 “compliant” is not “AEC-Q200 certified,” and the qualification report is only one of three documents a German Tier 1 will actually ask for. We checked all 451 Walsin datasheet pages for PPAP, IATF 16949, VDA and IMDS — zero. We checked for “qualification report,” “test report” and “sample size” — zero of those too. We hold the series approval sheet. We do not hold the qualification report or a PPAP package for any part number, and we would rather tell you that today than quote you a document we do not have.

Send us the automotive line items off your BOM. We will come back with the series approval sheet the same day, a written request to Walsin for the qualification report on your exact part numbers, and a plain statement of what we still do not hold. If your supplier-quality team has a fourth document on its list that we have not named here, tell us — that is the question we most want to put to Walsin next.

---

Frequently asked questions

<!– wp:rank-math/faq-block {"questions":[{"id":"faq-question-01","title":"Is AEC-Q200 compliant the same as AEC-Q200 certified?","content":"No. We checked all 451 pages of the 28 Walsin datasheets we hold. Walsin writes \"qualified to AEC-Q200\" 27 times and \"AEC-Q200 compliant\" twice, and never pairs AEC-Q200 with \"certified\" in the positive. The word \"certification\" appears beside AEC-Q200 only 6 times, and all 6 read \"without AEC-Q200 Certification,\" describing the MG series.","visible":true},{"id":"faq-question-02","title":"What are the three documents to request for an AEC-Q200 automotive MLCC?","content":"The series approval sheet with the AEC-Q200 test-condition tables, the AEC-Q200 qualification report for the exact part number, and a PPAP submission package including any IMDS material declaration. We hold the first. We do not hold the second or third for any part number, and we say so rather than imply coverage we do not have.","visible":true},{"id":"faq-question-03","title":"Do Walsin's datasheets mention PPAP, IATF 16949, VDA or IMDS?","content":"No. We searched all 451 pages for each of the four terms, spelled out and as acronyms, and found zero occurrences of any of them. That does not mean Walsin lacks the underlying documents — it means none of our 451 pages names them, and the honest step is to ask Walsin directly.","visible":true},{"id":"faq-question-04","title":"Can an MG series part satisfy an AEC-Q200 requirement in Germany?","content":"Not on the strength of the data. MG15X104K100 and MT15B104K160 share the same 0402 footprint and the same 100 nF value, and only the Series column in the export says which one is qualified. Walsin’s own MG heading reads \”Automotive Caps Without AEC-Q200 Certification.\””,”visible”:true},{“id”:”faq-question-05″,”title”:”Is an AEC-Q200 automotive MLCC in Hong Kong stock?”,”content”:”Not on the current snapshot. None of the 1,125 part numbers on our ready-stock list, dated 23 September 2026, sits in the MT, MG or ST series. Automotive MLCC here is quoted as a production order, and that is worth knowing before a design review assumes shelf availability.”,”visible”:true},{“id”:”faq-question-06″,”title”:”Does Venatech hold an AEC-Q200 qualification report?”,”content”:”No. We hold 28 Walsin datasheets, 451 pages, and the AEC-Q200 requirement tables inside them. The qualification report is Walsin’s own document, issued per part number, and nothing has been requested from Walsin in writing yet. A customer request is what puts a specific part number on that list.”,”visible”:true}],”listStyle”:””,”titleWrapper”:”h3″,”titleCssClasses”:””,”contentCssClasses”:””,”sizeSlug”:””} –>

---