Skip to main content
CME-132BDS-725 vs MS720N-HJTGB 8 of 19 identical Swap Change panels

AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 vs Mysolar USA MS720N-HJTGB

AE Solar CME-132BDS-725
CME-132BDS-725
725 Wp 23.37 % TOPCon Bifacial
VS
Mysolar USA
MS720N-HJTGB
720 Wp 23.17 % HJT Bifacial
The verdict

MS720N-HJTGB leads on the differences that matter

The largest is temperature coefficient: 0.030 %/°C better in heat. 8 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.

See all 11 differences
How alike are they
8 of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
identical differs
01

What actually differs

11 of 19 parameters
Parameter CME-132BDS-725 MS720N-HJTGB Difference
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.260 %/°C 0.030 %/°C better in heat
Annual degradation 0.40 %/yr 0.25 %/yr 0.15 %/yr slower
Weight 37.0 kg 38.8 kg 1.8 kg lighter
Cell technology TOPCon HJT TOPCon vs HJT
Module efficiency 23.37 % 23.17 % 0.20 pp more efficient
Weight per kWp 51.0 kg/kWp 53.9 kg/kWp 2.9 kg/kWp lighter
Short-circuit current 18.46 A 17.67 A 0.79 A apart
Open-circuit voltage 49.30 V 50.75 V 1.45 V apart
Dimensions 2383x1302x30 mm 2384x1303x35 mm 2383x1302x30 mm vs 2384x1303x35 mm
Voltage at max power 41.50 V 42.70 V 1.20 V apart
Current at max power 17.47 A 16.87 A 0.60 A apart
02

What it means on a roof

Thirty years of production
Declared annual degradation, with a 1.0% first-year loss assumed for both panels because at least one datasheet omits it, at 1,200 kWh/kWp a year
CME-132BDS-725
24,325 kWh
MS720N-HJTGB
24,721 kWh
Lifetime gap
396 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario CME-132BDS-725 MS720N-HJTGB
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 725 W 720 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.7% of rated power 693 W 692 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.3% of rated power 662 W 664 W
Hot roof 70 °C 87.0% of rated power 630 W 636 W
03

Full specification

Parameter CME-132BDS-725 MS720N-HJTGB Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 725 Wp 720 Wp Effectively the same
Module efficiency 23.37 % 23.17 % +0.20 pp for CME-132BDS-725
Power density 233.7 Wp/m² 231.8 Wp/m² Effectively the same
Open-circuit voltage 49.30 V 50.75 V 1.45 V apart
Voltage at max power 41.50 V 42.70 V 1.20 V apart
Short-circuit current 18.46 A 17.67 A 0.79 A apart
Current at max power 17.47 A 16.87 A 0.60 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.260 %/°C +0.030 %/°C for MS720N-HJTGB
Mechanical
Dimensions 2383x1302x30 mm 2384x1303x35 mm 2383x1302x30 mm vs 2384x1303x35 mm
Module area 3.103 m² 3.106 m² Effectively the same
Weight 37.0 kg 38.8 kg -1.8 kg for CME-132BDS-725
Weight per kWp 51.0 kg/kWp 53.9 kg/kWp -2.9 kg/kWp for CME-132BDS-725
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty 30 yrs 30 yrs Same
Performance warranty 30 yrs 30 yrs Same
Annual degradation 0.40 %/yr 0.25 %/yr -0.15 %/yr for MS720N-HJTGB
Technology
Cell technology TOPCon HJT TOPCon vs HJT
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 132 132 Same
Bifacial Yes Yes Same
04

Against the whole database

14,005 panels
Efficiency
#930 vs #1,473
CME-132BDS-725 leads by 543 places
Power density
#923 vs #1,347
CME-132BDS-725 leads by 424 places
Heat behaviour
#2,165 vs #511
MS720N-HJTGB leads by 1,654 places
Weight
#4,382 vs #8,017
CME-132BDS-725 leads by 3,635 places
Warranty
#21 vs #21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#11 vs #27
CME-132BDS-725 leads by 16 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 Mysolar USA MS720N-HJTGB?
According to our database: AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 has higher module efficiency (23.37% vs 23.17%); Mysolar USA MS720N-HJTGB tolerates heat better (temp coeff -0.260%/°C vs -0.290%/°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 Mysolar USA MS720N-HJTGB?
AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 has a module efficiency of 23.37%, while Mysolar USA MS720N-HJTGB is 23.17%. 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 Mysolar USA MS720N-HJTGB?
AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 uses TOPCon cells; Mysolar USA MS720N-HJTGB uses HJT. 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 Mysolar USA MS720N-HJTGB?
AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 has a 30 years power warranty; Mysolar USA MS720N-HJTGB 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 Mysolar USA MS720N-HJTGB bifacial panels?
Both AE Solar CME-132BDS-725 and Mysolar USA MS720N-HJTGB 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.
Compare AE Solar and Mysolar USA as manufacturers Portfolio, efficiency, cell technologies and warranty terms

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.