I'd guess that, much like ducted, you'll want to consider noise and CFM, though the air will be drawn in to filter, not to expel outside. I didn't see much information in a quick google search about different kinds of charcoal filters, but this video does mention a grease filter and a charcoal filter as separate items. I suppose a bigger charcoal filter would do a better job of taking out odor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zekrgdtty5s

I haven't searched for one, but it is possible that Broan/Best has a recirculating system with both grease filtering and charcoal-based odor filtering. To the question: Generally baffle filters are superior in grease extraction efficiency. This is why commercial hoods use baffles. Specifically, the baffles remove the larger end of the particle size spectrum while retaining their performance no matter how much grease is collected. The smaller end of the spectrum is expected to (hoped to) exit the system on the roof. The pressure loss of the baffles remains the same, greasy or not, and this allows the overall air flow to remain constant. However, baffles work by centrifugal extraction due to the air making two reversal in the baffle space. This requires some minimal velocity that likely depends on the details of the baffle design. For modest cooking where low blower speeds are adequate, there is a point where mesh filters -- if kept clean -- may become superior grease collectors. Mesh filters work by impingement. A hybrid baffle system seems to be intended to filter by mesh while providing the appearance of a baffle system. In some commercial applications, the stringent filtering requirements lead to stacked filters, the first usually being baffles, followed by mesh, ball bearing, and other schemes that address different parts of the particle spectrum. UV disassociation of grease and odor molecules is also popular.

I have written on this so many times that I am impressed that you didn't accidentally read about it just touring hood threads on this site. The function of a hood is capture and containment. Capture is what the hood entry aperture envelope does when the rising and expanding cooking plumes reach it. Ideally, the hood is large enough to encompass the plumes under the conditions that exist during cooking. Containment is removing the effluent from the hood entry area and pushing it outside through the hood filter -- preferably baffles. For residential hoods without the larger reservoir volume under the baffles that commercial hoods have, my view is that the velocity of the air pulled past the entry aperture by the hood system blower should be approximately 90 ft/min for hot oil cooking -- searing and wok cooking. 90 ft/min times the area of the hood entry aperture, say 6 sq ft for a 3 x 2 ft hood entry, yields the desired CFM. In this example it would be 540 CFM. This has to be achieved in the conditions of pressure losses in the baffles, dampers, ducts, and sheet metal transitions in the path to the outdoors, plus those similar pressure losses that occur getting outdoor make-up air (MUA) back to the cooktop. The nature of the blower performance (described by its 'fan curve') is that the rated CFM is the free air zero static pressure CFM, whereas the hood system CFM is to be achieved with this rating in the presence of the loop pressure loss. Without detailed analysis, I suggest multiplying the desired CFM by 1.5 to get the blower rated CFM. In this example, 540 x 1.5 = 810 CFM. Your MUA system then has to provide 540 CFM to the hood via whatever restrictions are in the MUA path that were accounted for within the 1.5 factor. It may need its own blower to do this with low pressure loss when that is needed. Hood overlap of 3 inches on each side of the cooktop, as well as at the front (also back for island hoods) is the minimum hood size for capturing most of the cooking plume effluent. This 3-inch parameter is for hoods 30 - 36 inches above the cooktop. For higher spacings, more hood width and depth is required, and this may not grow linearly due to increased susceptibility to cross drafts with height. Please review hood threads on this forum for insight into the issues that are common to cooking ventilation.

It isn't the CFM at the baffles, as this varies with the baffle area for a given blower. It is the velocity at the hood aperture that becomes a higher velocity at the baffles (inversely proportional to their gap area) that determines entrainment. And your CFM values are blower ratings, not actual flow rates. While baffles perform centrifugal extraction, for which higher velocities are more extractive, a given baffle design will likely have a lower velocity limit for adequate performance. Charcoal filters, on the other hand, might perform best if the flow rate were low per unit area. Charcoal works by adsorption, and I expect gentle contact to be the most effective, but I have never read anything related to that issue. In any case, as I'm sure you would have noticed reading enough hood threads here, for hot oil cooking a hood entry velocity of 90 ft/min is deemed (by me) to be adequate for residential hoods with low reservoir volumes. It may be understood that lesser cooking conditions can be addressed by lower velocities, and boiling eggs by the hood being off. Adequacy really depends on hood reservoir volume, and percentage of the hood entry aperture that the baffle gaps equal. Without computational fluid dynamics analysis of the entire configuration, starting at the pan, or use of a test kitchen, it is difficult to make unqualified pronouncements. Look for a hood that can do 90 CFM per square foot of entry aperture when at full power accounting for the pressure losses vs. the hood blower's fan curve. You probably won't find a recirculating one, or won't find the data. Residential hood manufacturers do not in general (some exceptions such as Wolf) provide blower fan curves, and I do not believe that the ARS even meets the worst case plume velocity suggested actual flow rate. You are in compromise heaven with the most expensive solution, and more affordable units will be even more compromised. Accept your fate, or move. [humor attempt]