I guess we would have to define what is reasonable.
The two parts mentioned are not complementary and they were never designed to be complementary.
They are switching transistors. They were never designed to be used in linear applications. The similarity in part number only means that they have the same voltage and current rating when used as switches.
When you try to use them as linear amplifiers (which can be done but is not a very good idea), they will have not only the usual disparity in interelectrode capacitances due to the differing die size required by the differences in mobility between holes in the P-channel and electrons in the N-channel, but they also have vastly different transconductances.
Transistors with vastly different transconductances are not complementary, by definition.
I agree, but there are pros and cons with trade-offs to any type of amplifying device. It is my experience that these transistors can and will work very well with certain error correction schemes and are much more suited to driving a reactive load, but even with EC it is still important that the devices you choose have a ~similar transconductance, and I agree this will most certainly be two devices of unequal capacitances and die size, and even different SOA ratings. They don't really have to have the same breakdown voltage or source resistor for that matter, but without some sort of EC, you will never really achieve the functionality of two vertical planer type matching complementary fets. It requires a few extra parts.

Forget Trench fets, they are not suited for operation in the 'linear' region due to thier physical construction, but the cell structure types are. However, I see lots of designs using these vertical fets with no local EC and low bias as if they are BJT's......


Not a very good idea.
For the fets I have in my amp, the graph shows how much Id vs Vgs is dependent on Vds, and just how much the EC circuit must have to manipulate this terrible distortion.

Definately they are designed as switchers and without EC it would be nearly imposible to use these to linearly drive a non-linear speaker. But then for a cost of $0.69; Pd=120W minus 0.8W/C....20W @ 150 degrees .....in a TO-220 package.

For the P-ch Pd=160W minus 1.06W/C, so 27W @ 150 degrees C.


Since these are $1.60 each, it is good that the N-ch (of ~equal Gm) will fail first.

Compare that, effectively ~10X Ft, and no secondary breakdown to a TO-220 BJT. Not even close.
