Those articles you are seeing are speaking from an implicit contexts, and everything is relative. There are many degrees of freedom.
- thin film resistors are not suitable for pulse power
- thick film resistors are more suitable for pulse power than thin film
- but thick film is still pretty crummy so you could go even farther say film resistors (both thin and thick film) in general are not suitable for pulse power compared to other bulk element resistors
- SMD components are not suitable for pulse power ("SMD" here might refer to chip components but there are components that are surface mount that are not chip and can handle pulse power just fine, like MELF)
- but there are double-sided SMD components with a film on both sides for increased surface area which are more suitable for pulse power than single-sided SMD components, but still not as suitable as MELF (or axial) where the trace can be printed around the entire surface area of the component
- axial and MELF (which are also an surface mount component, by the way) components are suitable for pulse power
- metal oxide film is not suitable for pulse power
- carbon is suitable for pulse power and could be carbon composition or carbon film (NOTE: I fairly certain this is not carbon thin film and that there is no such thing as carbon thin film).
- carbon film is less suitable for pulse power than carbon composition, because it is pure carbon and must be printed and therefore cannot be a bulk material like carbon composition. But the fact it is pure carbon means it is much more controllable and stable than carbon (mixed) composition
So what does that mean? It means the following for pulse powering capability (is not quite the same as high temperature cycling stability, and nothing to do with other performance metrics such as tolerance or noise):
- Carbon composition > carbon film > metal oxide thick film > metal
oxide thin film
- axial/MELF > double-sided SMD > single-sided SMD
But you can mix and match material with construction. So you can end up with a metal-oxide film on an axial/MELF body that might be more suitable for pulse power than carbon film on a single-sided SMD component.
Usually these articles are speaking only in a limited scope or context so will shorten their wording.
It can be difficult to tell when an article is actually referring exclusively to thin film SMD of if they actually mean all thin film when they say "thin film".
It can be difficult to tell whether an article is referring exclusively to chip components or to all surface-mounted components (such as MELF) when it says "SMD component".
The article could also be speaking from the point of view of a component manufacturer. For example, if you were making resistors it might be optimal in terms of pulse power to use carbon composition, which would be fine if that was all you cared about, but you sacrifice accuracy, noise, and cost. So you might instead choose to go with carbon film for more stability and lower tolerances and design your way around the deficiencies compared to carbon composition. Or you might decide to cut costs even more and go with metal oxide film and design your way around it the deficiencies in the material.
Or it might just be impossible to make a wirewound resistor with sufficiently high resistance so you need to go with metal oxide film, as is the case in your quote. You could go with carbon, but you might not need to and it probably costs more in terms of tooling, etc.