easily achieved with sequential deposition, the redissolution of the preceding layer by solvents used in the subsequent layers is a challenge for solution processed OLEDs during the multilayer fabrication process. [ 4 ] To get around this problem, cross-linkable hole transporting layers (HTLs) are typically used such that subsequent deposition of the emitting layer (EML) would not damage the underlying HTL during processing. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] To fi nish the device fabrication, evaporated electron transport layers (ETLs) are used in OLED fabrication to avoid solvent damages to the EML.Even with the same multilayer architecture, most OLEDs with a solution processed EML have lower effi ciencies than their thermal-evaporated counterparts. [12][13][14][15][16][17] One fundamental difference between evaporated and solution processed fi lms is the molecular packing. As summarized in Table S1 of the Supporting Information, [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] it is generally accepted that solution processed organic fi lms have a lower packing density than the vacuum deposited fi lms. Previous studies comparing solution processed and evaporated OLEDs were mostly focused on HTLs, where the packing density and hence carrier transport plays a critical role. [ 18,20,25,26 ] On the other hand, there are only a few reports directly comparing the performance of devices with solution processed and evaporated phosphorescent EMLs, [ 17,19 ] and the root cause for the difference in device performance is not well understood. It is, therefore, important to identify and study the factors determining the effi ciency loss mechanism in devices with a solution processed EML.In this work, we study the differences in high effi ciency OLEDs having solution processed and thermal-evaporated EMLs. Similar to other fi ndings, we found that the EQE of OLEDs with a solution processed EML is 22% lower than that of the devices with an evaporated EML using 1,3,5tris (N-phenylbenzimidazol-2,yl) benzene (TPBi) as an ETL. Interestingly, this difference in effi ciency became signifi cantly smaller as TPBi was replaced with bis -4,6-(3,5-di-3-pyridylphenyl)-2-methylpyrimidine (B3PYMPM) as an alternative ETL. Because of the deep highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy of B3PYMPM, we attribute the lower effi ciency in OLEDs with solution processed EMLs to the ineffi cient hole blocking properties of the TPBi ETL as revealed by the single carrier device results. A subsequent study on interfacial exciplex formation and energetic disorder revealed that for devices with a solution processed EML, band tail states broadening along with an energy level shift at the EML/ETL interfaces results in a higherThe performance of multilayered OLEDs with a solution processed emitting layer (EML) is compared to that of counterparts with an evaporated EML and it is found that the interfacial energy changes at the EML and electron transport layer (ETL) interface is a key factor determining the device effi ciency. From the results of exciplex photoluminesc...