Which facade is better?

Thank you very much for the detailed and interesting answers! I also don’t see it that every single thread has to cover all conceivable options so that someone who googles a keyword at some point immediately gets a comprehensive impression of the topic; that simply doesn’t work because of progress. And anyone who only reads this thread and wants to build their house with the information exchanged here can hardly be helped anyway.

Otherwise, I just briefly elaborated again for tommifc to roughly explain why these variants now play a role for me. It goes without saying that this is my personal opinion and that one can certainly have a different opinion...

Am I correct in assuming that you swapped the numbers of my variants in the last part of your post? Because variant 1 has an air layer! I just left it out because I considered it obvious. As a product of the U-value calculator, I would have understood the 36.5 cm Poroton more, since it is a monolithic construction, which at least here in the far north has no widespread history in this form (unlike the clinker construction). But feel free to elaborate again if you see a need for explanation, because you seem to be much more technically proficient than I am.

Otherwise, my decision is based less on a U-value table than on a few arguments and also the feeling and impression that Poroton is a nice building material.

By the way, I have already ruled out a plaster facade for myself because I simply like the look of the facing bricks. So only the two described variants remain, and thus the question which variant offers more in terms of quality and possibly longevity at the same price.

Regards

That it is my personal opinion and that one can certainly have a different opinion goes without saying...

No, unfortunately not. In almost all specialist forums (on almost all topics) you meet people with the view that the questioner must be taught what is "right". That is why I have again explicitly emphasized the aspect that you as the builder have the right to want to deal only with two alternatives, without being forced to endure lectures about the parts of market diversity not covered by them.

Am I correct in assuming that you mixed up the numbers of my variants in the last part of your post?

Sort of - I assigned the numbers correctly, but "swapped" the order, i.e. I deliberately addressed "2." first.

Because variant 1 has an air layer! I only omitted this because I considered it self-evident.

I consider that self-evident because in my opinion it is the only proper method – recently, however, some suppliers see it differently. Therefore, despite the 44 cm, I considered it possible that your supplier wants to do something without an air layer there. The air layers built earlier have now in part been filled with blown-in insulation beads. That means air is only still present between the beads, but no longer as a contiguous "air veil." This gives some suppliers the (in my opinion nonsense) idea to also fill such intermediate spaces "massively," with mat-shaped insulation materials. I have nothing against mats here; they were already used there before, but please equipped with an air layer (in my opinion useful from > 4 cm).

As a retort of the U-value calculator, I would rather have understood the 36.5 cm Poroton, since it is a monolithic construction method, which at least in our far north does not have a long history in this form (unlike the clinker construction method).

By "retort" I mean the currently very fashionable approach to specify a target value for the U-value and then calculate how much substitution of masonry thickness by insulation thickness would achieve a bullseye. "Retort," because it is concocted at Dr. Frankenstein’s desk purely computationally without understanding building physics aspects. I did not mean whether the building material exists with more or less tradition in this manufacturing method.

Otherwise, my decision is based less on a U-value table than on a few arguments and also the feeling and impression that Poroton is a nice building material.

How much of your question originally comes from your own research and how much from the corner "my supplier only has two daily menus – please advise me on the lesser evil," I have not yet recognized.

and thus the question of which variant offers more in terms of quality and perhaps also durability at the same price.

I see no fundamental difference: both wall constructions can be properly executed – if the supplier has significantly more "practice" with one of them, I would take that one. I am not aware of any undervaluation of cladding bricks compared to full clinker bricks by buyers or other evaluators. Since both have their own application scenarios, cladding bricks are not seen as a poor man's version, but rather as a retrofit option or plaster alternative. Only fakes, i.e. cladding brick imitations nailed in panels onto battens, are regarded as cheap.

[Double click - can be removed]

The core insulation with mineral wool, that is without a real air layer, I consider physically absolutely acceptable. There is also a very insightful study by the Fraunhofer Institute on this.

There is also a very insightful study from the Fraunhofer Institute on this.

Ah yes, thank you. I just googled it. It does indeed read as interesting and comprehensible. It seems to be written by experts (even among them there are sometimes zealots, but this study is conducted objectively).

What is specifically relevant here for the questioner, briefly summarized: an air layer is only effective under the condition of a clean execution. If the core insulation does not absorb moisture, it can be used without an air layer; otherwise, usual open joints for ventilation purposes can actually turn into moisture entry points and are therefore not recommended.

What I found in this and other search results was a further indication that facing bricks as a substitute for a full clinker facing shell directly in front of an insulation layer are not suitable, as they do not adequately protect it. No one would probably even think of doing this in front of fiber mats, but with foam boards people might.

For applying instead of plaster in front of a single-layer wall, however, facing bricks are suitable (and made for that).

Thanks again for the informative contribution!

As already explained, I first looked into façade types and different stones and then found a developer that fits. Naturally, the façade construction is an important point, but not the decisive factor in such a project. I think both options are basically good, which is why both are possible for me. The cladding strips are, of course, proper real cladding strips with corner pieces, so there should be no visual difference later. Not that it would really be useful for answering the question, but the developer is basically quite diversified and also offers other solutions - which do not come into question here and therefore have no place here.