Skip to main content
CME-132BDS-725 vs MD-120BD-440 3 of 19 identical Swap Change panels

AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 vs AE Solar MD-120BD-440

CME-132BDS-725
725 Wp 23.37 % TOPCon Bifacial
Open panel page
VS
MD-120BD-440
440 Wp 20.42 % PERC Bifacial
Open panel page
The verdict

CME-132BDS-725 leads on the differences that matter

The largest is module efficiency: 2.95 pp more efficient. 3 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.

See all 16 differences
How alike are they
3 of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
identical differs
01

What actually differs

16 of 19 parameters
Parameter CME-132BDS-725 MD-120BD-440 Difference
Module efficiency 23.37 % 20.42 % 2.95 pp more efficient
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.350 %/°C 0.060 %/°C better in heat
Rated power 725 Wp 440 Wp 285 W more power
Power density 233.7 Wp/m² 204.2 Wp/m² 29.5 Wp/m² higher
Annual degradation 0.40 %/yr 0.55 %/yr 0.15 %/yr slower
Weight 37.0 kg 25.5 kg 11.5 kg lighter
Product warranty 30 yrs 15 yrs 15 yrs longer
Weight per kWp 51.0 kg/kWp 58.0 kg/kWp 6.9 kg/kWp lighter
Open-circuit voltage 49.30 V 41.35 V 7.95 V apart
Short-circuit current 18.46 A 13.47 A 4.99 A apart
Module area 3.103 m² 2.155 m² 0.948 m² apart
Cell technology TOPCon PERC TOPCon vs PERC
Voltage at max power 41.50 V 34.62 V 6.88 V apart
Current at max power 17.47 A 12.71 A 4.76 A apart
Cell count 132 120 12 cells apart
Dimensions 2383x1302x30 mm 1902x1133x30 mm 2383x1302x30 mm vs 1902x1133x30 mm
02

What it means on a roof

Thirty years of production
Each panel's own declared degradation curve, at 1,200 kWh/kWp a year
CME-132BDS-725
24,325 kWh
MD-120BD-440
14,181 kWh
Lifetime gap
10,144 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario CME-132BDS-725 MD-120BD-440
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 725 W 440 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 94.8% of rated power 693 W 417 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 89.5% of rated power 662 W 394 W
Hot roof 70 °C 84.2% of rated power 630 W 371 W
03

Full specification

Parameter CME-132BDS-725 MD-120BD-440 Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 725 Wp 440 Wp +285 W for CME-132BDS-725
Module efficiency 23.37 % 20.42 % +2.95 pp for CME-132BDS-725
Power density 233.7 Wp/m² 204.2 Wp/m² +29.5 Wp/m² for CME-132BDS-725
Open-circuit voltage 49.30 V 41.35 V 7.95 V apart
Voltage at max power 41.50 V 34.62 V 6.88 V apart
Short-circuit current 18.46 A 13.47 A 4.99 A apart
Current at max power 17.47 A 12.71 A 4.76 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.350 %/°C +0.060 %/°C for CME-132BDS-725
Mechanical
Dimensions 2383x1302x30 mm 1902x1133x30 mm 2383x1302x30 mm vs 1902x1133x30 mm
Module area 3.103 m² 2.155 m² 0.948 m² apart
Weight 37.0 kg 25.5 kg -11.5 kg for MD-120BD-440
Weight per kWp 51.0 kg/kWp 58.0 kg/kWp -6.9 kg/kWp for CME-132BDS-725
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 0.55 %/yr -0.15 %/yr for CME-132BDS-725
Technology
Cell technology TOPCon PERC TOPCon vs PERC
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 132 120 12 cells apart
Bifacial Yes Yes Same
04

Against the whole database

14,013 panels
Efficiency
#929 vs #11,555
CME-132BDS-725 leads by 10,626 places
Power density
#922 vs #11,566
CME-132BDS-725 leads by 10,644 places
Heat behaviour
#2,165 vs #10,400
CME-132BDS-725 leads by 8,235 places
Weight
#4,371 vs #11,478
CME-132BDS-725 leads by 7,107 places
Warranty
#21 vs #21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#11 vs #10,595
CME-132BDS-725 leads by 10,584 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
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 MD-120BD-440?
According to our database: AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 has higher module efficiency (23.37% vs 20.42%); 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 MD-120BD-440?
AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 has a module efficiency of 23.37%, while AE Solar MD-120BD-440 is 20.42%. 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 MD-120BD-440?
AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 uses TOPCon cells; AE Solar MD-120BD-440 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 MD-120BD-440?
AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 has a 30 years power warranty; AE Solar MD-120BD-440 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 MD-120BD-440 bifacial panels?
Both AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 and AE Solar MD-120BD-440 are bifacial - they capture reflected light from the ground, which can add 5-15% more annual energy on ground-mount or elevated rooftop installations with a light surface beneath.

Shop prices: See 4 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.