In the core accretion scenario, a massive core forms first and then accretes an envelope. When discussing how this core forms some divergences appear. First scenarios of planet formation predict the accretion of km-sized bodies, called planetesimals, while more recent works suggest growth by accretion of pebbles, which are cm-sized objects. These two accretion models are often discussed separately and we aim here at comparing the outcomes of the two models with identical initial conditions. We use two distinct codes: one computing planetesimal accretion, the other pebble accretion. Using a population synthesis approach, we compare planet simulations and study the impact of the two solid accretion models, focussing on the formation of single planets. We find that the planetesimal model predicts the formation of more giant planets, while the pebble accretion model forms more super-Earth mass planets. This is due to the pebble isolation mass concept, which prevents planets formed by pebble accretion to accrete gas efficiently before reaching Miso. This translates into a population of planets that are not heavy enough to accrete a consequent envelope but that are in a mass range where type I migration is very efficient. We also find higher gas mass fractions for a given core mass for the pebble model compared to the planetesimal one caused by luminosity differences. This also implies planets with lower densities which could be confirmed observationally. Focusing on giant planets, we conclude that the sensitivity of their formation differs: for the pebble accretion model, the time at which the embryos are formed, as well as the period over which solids are accreted strongly impact the results, while for the planetesimal model it depends on the planetesimal size and on the splitting in the amount of solids available to form planetesimals.

One of the main scenarios of planet formation is the core accretion model where a massive core forms first and then accretes a gaseous envelope. This core forms by accreting solids, either planetesimals, or pebbles. A key constraint in this model is that the accretion of gas must proceed before the dissipation of the gas disc. Classical planetesimal accretion scenario predicts that the time needed to form a giant planets core is much longer than the time needed to dissipate the disc. This difficulty led to the development of another accretion scenario, in which cores grow by accretion of pebbles, which are much smaller and thus more easily accreted, leading to a more rapid formation. The aim of this paper is to compare our updated pebble-based planet formation model with observations, in particular the well studied metallicity effect. We adopt the Bitsch et al. 2015a disc model and the Bitsch et al. 2015b pebble model and use a population synthesis approach to compare the formed planets with observations. We find that keeping the same parameters as in Bitsch et al. 2015b leads to no planet growth due to a computation mistake in the pebble flux (Bitsch et al. 2017). Indeed a large fraction of the heavy elements should be put into pebbles (Zpeb/Ztot = 0.9) in order to form massive planets using this approach. The resulting mass functions show a huge amount of giants and a lack of Neptune mass planets, which are abundant according to observations. To overcome this issue we include the computation of the internal structure for the planetary atmosphere to our model. This leads to the formation of Neptune mass planets but no observable giants. Reducing the opacity of the planetary envelope finally matches observations better. We conclude that modeling the internal structure for the planetary atmosphere is necessary to reproduce observations.