--- title: "AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw vs Peimar OR10H450MNDB (FB) - Solar Panel Comparison | ComparePV" description: "Compare AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw vs Peimar OR10H450MNDB (FB) side by side: what actually differs, output when it is hot, thirty-year production, and the full specification." source: "https://comparepv.com/compare/aiko-aiko-a495-mce54mw/peimar-or10h450mndb-fb" image: "https://comparepv.com/og/compare/panels/aiko-aiko-a495-mce54mw/peimar-or10h450mndb-fb.png" updated: 2026-09-11 --- # AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw vs Peimar OR10H450MNDB (FB) AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw leads on the differences that matter The largest is module efficiency: 1.76 pp more efficient. 3 of 18 comparable parameters are identical, with 1 more left out because at least one datasheet does not publish it. ## The two panels | Attribute | A | B | | --- | --- | --- | | Panel | [AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw](https://comparepv.com/panel/aiko-aiko-a495-mce54mw) | [Peimar OR10H450MNDB (FB)](https://comparepv.com/panel/peimar-or10h450mndb-fb) | | Manufacturer | AIKO | Peimar | | Power | 495 Wp | 450 Wp | | Efficiency | 24.80 % | 23.04 % | | Technology | Back Contact | TOPCon | ## Where they differ Ranked by how much the difference matters, not by datasheet order. | Parameter | AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw | OR10H450MNDB (FB) | Difference | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Module efficiency | 24.80 % | 23.04 % | +1.76 pp for AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw | | Rated power | 495 Wp | 450 Wp | +45 W for AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw | | Power density | 247.7 Wp/m² | 230.4 Wp/m² | +17.3 Wp/m² for AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw | | Temperature coefficient | -0.260 %/°C | -0.290 %/°C | +0.030 %/°C for AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw | | Weight per kWp | 42.4 kg/kWp | 51.6 kg/kWp | -9.2 kg/kWp for AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw | | Product warranty | 15 yrs | 25 yrs | +10 yrs for OR10H450MNDB (FB) | | Weight | 21.0 kg | 23.2 kg | -2.2 kg for AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw | | Cell technology | Back Contact | TOPCon | Back Contact vs TOPCon | | Module area | 1.998 m² | 1.953 m² | 0.045 m² apart | | Open-circuit voltage | 41.10 V | 38.99 V | 2.11 V apart | | Short-circuit current | 15.00 A | 14.25 A | 0.75 A apart | | Bifacial | No | Yes | No vs Yes | | Dimensions | 1762x1134x30 mm | 1722x1134x30 mm | 1762x1134x30 mm vs 1722x1134x30 mm | | Current at max power | 14.35 A | 13.53 A | 0.82 A apart | | Voltage at max power | 34.50 V | 33.25 V | 1.25 V apart | ## Every compared parameter | Parameter | AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw | OR10H450MNDB (FB) | | --- | --- | --- | | Rated power | 495 Wp | 450 Wp | | Module efficiency | 24.80 % | 23.04 % | | Power density | 247.7 Wp/m² | 230.4 Wp/m² | | Open-circuit voltage | 41.10 V | 38.99 V | | Voltage at max power | 34.50 V | 33.25 V | | Short-circuit current | 15.00 A | 14.25 A | | Current at max power | 14.35 A | 13.53 A | | Temperature coefficient | -0.260 %/°C | -0.290 %/°C | | Dimensions | 1762x1134x30 mm | 1722x1134x30 mm | | Module area | 1.998 m² | 1.953 m² | | Weight | 21.0 kg | 23.2 kg | | Weight per kWp | 42.4 kg/kWp | 51.6 kg/kWp | | Product warranty | 15 yrs | 25 yrs | | Performance warranty | 30 yrs | 30 yrs | | Annual degradation | 0.35 %/yr | - | | Cell technology | Back Contact | TOPCon | | Cell type | Monocrystalline | Monocrystalline | | Cell count | 108 | 108 | | Bifacial | No | Yes | ## Thirty-year yield A 1.0% first-year loss then 0.40% a year, assumed for both panels, at 1,200 kWh/kWp a year - **Cumulative output, AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw:** 16,608 kWh - **Cumulative output, OR10H450MNDB (FB):** 15,098 kWh - **Gap:** 1,510 kWh ## Output when hot | Condition | Cell temperature | AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw | OR10H450MNDB (FB) | Retained | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Standard test conditions | 25 °C | 495 W | 450 W | 100.0% of rated power | | Cool, bright day | 40 °C | 476 W | 430 W | 95.7% of rated power | | Typical summer roof | 55 °C | 456 W | 411 W | 91.3% of rated power | | Hot roof | 70 °C | 437 W | 391 W | 87.0% of rated power | ## Against the whole database | Measure | AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw | OR10H450MNDB (FB) | Out of | Note | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Efficiency | #13 | #1,761 | 14,129 | AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw leads by 1,748 places | | Power density | #41 | #1,758 | 14,129 | AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw leads by 1,717 places | | Heat behaviour | #515 | #2,220 | 14,129 | AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw leads by 1,705 places | | Weight | #219 | #5,034 | 14,129 | AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw leads by 4,815 places | | Warranty | #21 | #21 | 14,129 | Tied - the same position in the database | | Overall | #3,974 | #5,600 | 14,129 | AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw leads by 1,626 places | ## Questions ### Which panel is better: AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw or Peimar OR10H450MNDB (FB)? According to our database: **AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw** has higher module efficiency (**24.80%** vs **23.04%**); **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 Peimar OR10H450MNDB (FB)? **AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw** has a module efficiency of **24.80%**, while **Peimar OR10H450MNDB (FB)** is **23.04%**. 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 Peimar OR10H450MNDB (FB)? **AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw** uses **Back Contact** cells; **Peimar OR10H450MNDB (FB)** 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 Peimar OR10H450MNDB (FB)? **AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw** has a **30 years** power warranty; **Peimar OR10H450MNDB (FB)** 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 AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw and Peimar OR10H450MNDB (FB) bifacial panels? **Peimar OR10H450MNDB (FB)** is bifacial (captures light from both faces); **AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw** is monofacial. Bifacial panels work best on ground mounts or raised structures with a light-coloured surface underneath. ## Related comparisons - [AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw vs AIKO AIKO-A490-MCE54Mw](https://comparepv.com/compare/aiko-aiko-a495-mce54mw/aiko-aiko-a490-mce54mw) - One difference: module efficiency - [AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw vs AIKO AIKO-A485-MCE54Mw](https://comparepv.com/compare/aiko-aiko-a495-mce54mw/aiko-aiko-a485-mce54mw) - 3 differences, the largest is module efficiency - [AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw vs AIKO AIKO-A480-MCE54Mw](https://comparepv.com/compare/aiko-aiko-a495-mce54mw/aiko-aiko-a480-mce54mw) - 3 differences, the largest is module efficiency - [AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw vs AIKO AIKO-A475-MCE54Mw](https://comparepv.com/compare/aiko-aiko-a495-mce54mw/aiko-aiko-a475-mce54mw) - 3 differences, the largest is module efficiency - [AIKO AIKO-A495-MCE54Mw vs AIKO AIKO-A470-MCE54Mw](https://comparepv.com/compare/aiko-aiko-a495-mce54mw/aiko-aiko-a470-mce54mw) - 5 differences, the largest is module efficiency - [Peimar OR10H450MNDB (FB) vs Peimar OR10H595MNDB](https://comparepv.com/compare/peimar-or10h450mndb-fb/peimar-or10h595mndb) - 7 differences, the largest is rated power --- Source: https://comparepv.com/compare/aiko-aiko-a495-mce54mw/peimar-or10h450mndb-fb Not in this file, on the page: the thirty-year yield curve year by year at a cell temperature you pick and a written summary generated on request.