Skip to main content
AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw vs CS6.2-54TM-520 7 of 19 identical Swap Change panels

AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw vs Canadian Solar CS6.2-54TM-520

AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw
AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw
495 Wp 24.80 % Back Contact
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
VS
Canadian Solar CS6.2-54TM-520
CS6.2-54TM-520
520 Wp 23.40 % TOPCon
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
The verdict

AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw leads on the differences that matter

The largest is module efficiency: 1.40 pp more efficient. 7 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.

See all 12 differences
How alike are they
7 of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
identical differs
01

What actually differs

12 of 19 parameters
Parameter AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw CS6.2-54TM-520 Difference
Module efficiency 24.80 % 23.40 % 1.40 pp more efficient
Power density 247.7 Wp/m² 233.8 Wp/m² 13.9 Wp/m² higher
Temperature coefficient -0.260 %/°C -0.290 %/°C 0.030 %/°C better in heat
Rated power 495 Wp 520 Wp 25 W more power
Module area 1.998 m² 2.224 m² 0.226 m² apart
Weight 21.0 kg 23.3 kg 2.3 kg lighter
Cell technology Back Contact TOPCon Back Contact vs TOPCon
Short-circuit current 15.00 A 16.20 A 1.20 A apart
Annual degradation 0.35 %/yr 0.40 %/yr 0.05 %/yr slower
Weight per kWp 42.4 kg/kWp 44.8 kg/kWp 2.4 kg/kWp lighter
Dimensions 1762x1134x30 mm 1961x1134x30 mm 1762x1134x30 mm vs 1961x1134x30 mm
Current at max power 14.35 A 15.22 A 0.87 A apart
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
AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw
16,737 kWh
CS6.2-54TM-520
17,447 kWh
Lifetime gap
710 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw CS6.2-54TM-520
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 495 W 520 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.7% of rated power 476 W 497 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.3% of rated power 456 W 475 W
Hot roof 70 °C 87.0% of rated power 437 W 452 W
03

Full specification

Parameter AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw CS6.2-54TM-520 Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 495 Wp 520 Wp +25 W for CS6.2-54TM-520
Module efficiency 24.80 % 23.40 % +1.40 pp for AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw
Power density 247.7 Wp/m² 233.8 Wp/m² +13.9 Wp/m² for AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw
Open-circuit voltage 41.10 V 40.40 V Effectively the same
Voltage at max power 34.50 V 34.20 V Effectively the same
Short-circuit current 15.00 A 16.20 A 1.20 A apart
Current at max power 14.35 A 15.22 A 0.87 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.260 %/°C -0.290 %/°C +0.030 %/°C for AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw
Mechanical
Dimensions 1762x1134x30 mm 1961x1134x30 mm 1762x1134x30 mm vs 1961x1134x30 mm
Module area 1.998 m² 2.224 m² 0.226 m² apart
Weight 21.0 kg 23.3 kg -2.3 kg for AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw
Weight per kWp 42.4 kg/kWp 44.8 kg/kWp -2.4 kg/kWp for AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty 15 yrs 15 yrs Same
Performance warranty 30 yrs 30 yrs Same
Annual degradation 0.35 %/yr 0.40 %/yr -0.05 %/yr for AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw
Technology
Cell technology Back Contact TOPCon Back Contact vs TOPCon
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 108 108 Same
Bifacial No No Same
04

Against the whole database

14,005 panels
Efficiency
#12 vs #882
AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw leads by 870 places
Power density
#37 vs #909
AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw leads by 872 places
Heat behaviour
#511 vs #2,165
AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw leads by 1,654 places
Weight
#219 vs #540
AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw leads by 321 places
Warranty
#21 vs #21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#3,920 vs #4,712
AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw leads by 792 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw vs AIKO AIKO-A490-MCE54Mw
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw vs AIKO AIKO-A485-MCE54Mw
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw vs AIKO AIKO-A480-MCE54Mw
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw vs AIKO AIKO-A475-MCE54Mw
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw vs AIKO AIKO-A470-MCE54Mw
5 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Canadian Solar CS6.2-54TM-520 vs Canadian Solar CS6.2-66TM-635
8 differences, the largest is rated power
06

Written summary

07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw or Canadian Solar CS6.2-54TM-520?
According to our database: AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw has higher module efficiency (24.80% vs 23.40%); AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw 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 AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw and Canadian Solar CS6.2-54TM-520?
AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw has a module efficiency of 24.80%, while Canadian Solar CS6.2-54TM-520 is 23.40%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw use vs Canadian Solar CS6.2-54TM-520?
AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw uses Back Contact cells; Canadian Solar CS6.2-54TM-520 uses TOPCon. 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 AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw and Canadian Solar CS6.2-54TM-520?
AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw has a 30 years power warranty; Canadian Solar CS6.2-54TM-520 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.
Compare AIKO and Canadian Solar as manufacturers Portfolio, efficiency, cell technologies and warranty terms

Shop prices: See 170 AIKO offers · See 38 Canadian 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.