AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 vs AE Solar AE MD-144 530W-550W (540W)
VS
The verdict
CME-132BDS-725 leads on the differences that matter
The largest is module efficiency: 2.45 pp more efficient. 5 of 18 comparable parameters are identical, with 1 more left out because at least one datasheet does not publish it.
See all 13 differencesHow alike are they
5
of 18 comparable
parameters are identical
parameters are identical
identical
differs
not published
01
13 of 18 parameters
What actually differs
Parameter
CME-132BDS-725
AE MD-144 530W-550W (540W)
Difference
Module efficiency
23.37 %
20.92 %
2.45 pp more efficient
Temperature coefficient
-0.290 %/°C
-0.350 %/°C
0.060 %/°C better in heat
Rated power
725 Wp
540 Wp
185 W more power
Power density
233.7 Wp/m²
209.2 Wp/m²
24.4 Wp/m² higher
Weight
37.0 kg
26.5 kg
10.5 kg lighter
Product warranty
30 yrs
15 yrs
15 yrs longer
Short-circuit current
18.46 A
13.57 A
4.89 A apart
Module area
3.103 m²
2.581 m²
0.522 m² apart
Cell technology
TOPCon
PERC
TOPCon vs PERC
Current at max power
17.47 A
12.81 A
4.66 A apart
Cell count
132
144
12 cells apart
Bifacial
Yes
No
Yes vs No
Dimensions
2383x1302x30 mm
2278x1133x30 mm
2383x1302x30 mm vs 2278x1133x30 mm
02
What it means on a roof
Thirty years of production
Declared first-year losses, with 0.40% a year afterwards assumed for both panels, at 1,200 kWh/kWp a year
CME-132BDS-725
24,325 kWh
AE MD-144 530W-550W (540W)
17,826 kWh
Lifetime gap
6,499 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario
CME-132BDS-725
AE MD-144 530W-550W (540W)
Standard test conditions
25 °C
100.0% of rated power
725 W
540 W
Cool, bright day
40 °C
94.8% of rated power
693 W
512 W
Typical summer roof
55 °C
89.5% of rated power
662 W
483 W
Hot roof
70 °C
84.2% of rated power
630 W
455 W
03
Full specification
Parameter
CME-132BDS-725
AE MD-144 530W-550W (540W)
Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power
725 Wp
540 Wp
+185 W for CME-132BDS-725
Module efficiency
23.37 %
20.92 %
+2.45 pp for CME-132BDS-725
Power density
233.7 Wp/m²
209.2 Wp/m²
+24.4 Wp/m² for CME-132BDS-725
Open-circuit voltage
49.30 V
49.90 V
Effectively the same
Voltage at max power
41.50 V
42.15 V
Effectively the same
Short-circuit current
18.46 A
13.57 A
4.89 A apart
Current at max power
17.47 A
12.81 A
4.66 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient
-0.290 %/°C
-0.350 %/°C
+0.060 %/°C for CME-132BDS-725
Mechanical
Dimensions
2383x1302x30 mm
2278x1133x30 mm
2383x1302x30 mm vs 2278x1133x30 mm
Module area
3.103 m²
2.581 m²
0.522 m² apart
Weight
37.0 kg
26.5 kg
-10.5 kg for AE MD-144 530W-550W (540W)
Weight per kWp
51.0 kg/kWp
49.1 kg/kWp
Effectively the same
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty
30 yrs
15 yrs
+15 yrs for CME-132BDS-725
Performance warranty
30 yrs
30 yrs
Same
Annual degradation
0.40 %/yr
-
Not published by AE Solar
Technology
Cell technology
TOPCon
PERC
TOPCon vs PERC
Cell type
Monocrystalline
Monocrystalline
Same
Cell count
132
144
12 cells apart
Bifacial
Yes
No
Yes vs No
04
14,005 panels
Against the whole database
Efficiency
#930
vs
#10,014
CME-132BDS-725 leads by 9,084 places
Power density
#923
vs
#10,065
CME-132BDS-725 leads by 9,142 places
Heat behaviour
#2,165
vs
#10,419
CME-132BDS-725 leads by 8,254 places
Weight
#4,382
vs
#2,710
AE MD-144 530W-550W (540W) leads by 1,672 places
Warranty
#21
vs
#21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#11
vs
#6,996
CME-132BDS-725 leads by 6,985 places
05
Open the full database
More useful comparisons
Same series, other bin
AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 vs AE Solar CME-132BDS-730
The same specification on paper
Same series, other bin
AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 vs AE Solar CME-132BDS-730W
One difference: product warranty
Same series, other bin
AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 vs AE Solar CME-132BDS-725W
One difference: product warranty
Same series, other bin
AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 vs AE Solar CME-132BDS-720
The same specification on paper
Same series, other bin
AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 vs AE Solar CME-132BDS-720W
One difference: product warranty
Same series, other bin
AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 vs AE Solar CME-132BDS-715
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06
Written summary
Checking cache...
07
Questions about this pairing
Which panel is better: AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 or AE Solar AE MD-144 530W-550W (540W)?
According to our database: AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 has higher module efficiency (23.37% vs 20.92%); AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 tolerates heat better (temp coeff -0.290%/°C vs -0.350%/°C). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 and AE Solar AE MD-144 530W-550W (540W)?
AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 has a module efficiency of 23.37%, while AE Solar AE MD-144 530 W-550 W (540 W) is 20.92%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 use vs AE Solar AE MD-144 530W-550W (540W)?
AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 uses TOPCon cells; AE Solar AE MD-144 530 W-550 W (540 W) uses PERC. Modern n-type technologies (TOPCon, HJT, BC) typically deliver higher efficiency and lower degradation compared to older PERC (p-type) cells.
What is the warranty on AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 and AE Solar AE MD-144 530W-550W (540W)?
AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 has a 30 years power warranty; AE Solar AE MD-144 530 W-550 W (540 W) has a 30 years power warranty. The power warranty guarantees a minimum percentage of rated output at the end of the warranty period (typically 80-87%). Product (materials) warranties are usually shorter.
Are AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 and AE Solar AE MD-144 530W-550W (540W) bifacial panels?
AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 is bifacial (captures light from both faces); AE Solar AE MD-144 530 W-550 W (540 W) is monofacial. Bifacial panels work best on ground mounts or raised structures with a light-coloured surface underneath.
Shop prices: See 5 AE Solar offers
Every figure here is from the manufacturers' own datasheets - a dash means the value is not published, never an estimate. The thirty-year projection and the temperature scenarios are calculations from those figures, and each states its assumption above.

