Skip to main content
A450-MAH54Mb vs A795-GRH78Dw 4 of 18 identical Swap Change panels

AIKO AIKO-A450-MAH54Mb vs AIKO AIKO-A795-GRH78Dw

AIKO AIKO-A450-MAH54Mb
AIKO-A450-MAH54Mb
450 Wp 23.00 % Back Contact
VS
AIKO AIKO-A795-GRH78Dw
AIKO-A795-GRH78Dw
795 Wp 24.80 % Back Contact Bifacial Incomplete
The verdict

A795-GRH78Dw leads on the differences that matter

The largest is module efficiency: 1.80 pp more efficient. 4 of 18 comparable parameters are identical, with 1 more left out because at least one datasheet does not publish it.

See all 14 differences
How alike are they
4 of 18 comparable
parameters are identical
identical differs not published
01

What actually differs

14 of 18 parameters
Parameter A450-MAH54Mb A795-GRH78Dw Difference
Module efficiency 23.00 % 24.80 % 1.80 pp more efficient
Rated power 450 Wp 795 Wp 345 W more power
Power density 230.4 Wp/m² 247.5 Wp/m² 17.1 Wp/m² higher
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.260 %/°C 0.030 %/°C better in heat
Weight 20.5 kg 39.8 kg 19.3 kg lighter
Open-circuit voltage 40.19 V 59.22 V 19.03 V apart
Short-circuit current 13.75 A 16.99 A 3.24 A apart
Module area 1.953 m² 3.212 m² 1.259 m² apart
Weight per kWp 45.6 kg/kWp 50.1 kg/kWp 4.5 kg/kWp lighter
Voltage at max power 34.01 V 49.27 V 15.26 V apart
Current at max power 13.24 A 16.14 A 2.90 A apart
Cell count 108 156 48 cells apart
Bifacial No Yes No vs Yes
Dimensions 1722x1134x30 mm 2465x1303x33 mm 1722x1134x30 mm vs 2465x1303x33 mm
02

What it means on a roof

Thirty years of production
A 1.0% first-year loss then 0.40% a year, assumed for both panels, at 1,200 kWh/kWp a year
A450-MAH54Mb
15,098 kWh
A795-GRH78Dw
26,674 kWh
Lifetime gap
11,576 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario A450-MAH54Mb A795-GRH78Dw
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 450 W 795 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.7% of rated power 430 W 764 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.3% of rated power 411 W 733 W
Hot roof 70 °C 87.0% of rated power 391 W 702 W
03

Full specification

Parameter A450-MAH54Mb A795-GRH78Dw Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 450 Wp 795 Wp +345 W for A795-GRH78Dw
Module efficiency 23.00 % 24.80 % +1.80 pp for A795-GRH78Dw
Power density 230.4 Wp/m² 247.5 Wp/m² +17.1 Wp/m² for A795-GRH78Dw
Open-circuit voltage 40.19 V 59.22 V 19.03 V apart
Voltage at max power 34.01 V 49.27 V 15.26 V apart
Short-circuit current 13.75 A 16.99 A 3.24 A apart
Current at max power 13.24 A 16.14 A 2.90 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.260 %/°C +0.030 %/°C for A795-GRH78Dw
Mechanical
Dimensions 1722x1134x30 mm 2465x1303x33 mm 1722x1134x30 mm vs 2465x1303x33 mm
Module area 1.953 m² 3.212 m² 1.259 m² apart
Weight 20.5 kg 39.8 kg -19.3 kg for A450-MAH54Mb
Weight per kWp 45.6 kg/kWp 50.1 kg/kWp -4.5 kg/kWp for A450-MAH54Mb
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty 15 yrs 15 yrs Same
Performance warranty 30 yrs 30 yrs Same
Annual degradation 0.35 %/yr - Not published by AIKO
Technology
Cell technology Back Contact Back Contact Same
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 108 156 48 cells apart
Bifacial No Yes No vs Yes
04

Against the whole database

14,005 panels
Efficiency
#1,919 vs #12
A795-GRH78Dw leads by 1,907 places
Power density
#1,708 vs #38
A795-GRH78Dw leads by 1,670 places
Heat behaviour
#2,165 vs #511
A795-GRH78Dw leads by 1,654 places
Weight
#767 vs #3,585
A450-MAH54Mb leads by 2,818 places
Warranty
#21 vs #21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#7,676 vs #3
A795-GRH78Dw leads by 7,673 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
AIKO AIKO-A450-MAH54Mb vs AIKO AIKO-A460-MAH54Mb
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
AIKO AIKO-A450-MAH54Mb vs AIKO AIKO-A455-MAH54Mb
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
AIKO AIKO-A450-MAH54Mb vs AIKO AIKO-A445-MAH54Mb
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
AIKO AIKO-A795-GRH78Dw vs AIKO AIKO-A805-GRH78Dw
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
AIKO AIKO-A795-GRH78Dw vs AIKO AIKO-A800-GRH78Dw
The same specification on paper
Same series, other bin
AIKO AIKO-A795-GRH78Dw vs AIKO AIKO-A790-GRH78Dw
One difference: module efficiency
06

Written summary

Checking cache...
07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: AIKO AIKO-A450-MAH54Mb or AIKO AIKO-A795-GRH78Dw?
According to our database: AIKO AIKO-A795-GRH78Dw has higher module efficiency (24.80% vs 23.00%); AIKO AIKO-A795-GRH78Dw 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-A450-MAH54Mb and AIKO AIKO-A795-GRH78Dw?
AIKO AIKO-A450-MAH54Mb has a module efficiency of 23.00%, while AIKO AIKO-A795-GRH78Dw is 24.80%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does AIKO AIKO-A450-MAH54Mb use vs AIKO AIKO-A795-GRH78Dw?
AIKO AIKO-A450-MAH54Mb uses Back Contact cells; AIKO AIKO-A795-GRH78Dw uses Back Contact. 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-A450-MAH54Mb and AIKO AIKO-A795-GRH78Dw?
AIKO AIKO-A450-MAH54Mb has a 30 years power warranty; AIKO AIKO-A795-GRH78Dw 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-A450-MAH54Mb and AIKO AIKO-A795-GRH78Dw bifacial panels?
AIKO AIKO-A795-GRH78Dw is bifacial (captures light from both faces); AIKO AIKO-A450-MAH54Mb is monofacial. Bifacial panels work best on ground mounts or raised structures with a light-coloured surface underneath.

Shop prices: See 171 AIKO 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.