Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725 vs Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-570
VS
The verdict
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725 leads on the differences that matter
The largest is module efficiency: 1.20 pp more efficient. 5 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.
See all 14 differencesHow alike are they
5
of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
parameters are identical
identical
differs
01
14 of 19 parameters
What actually differs
Parameter
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725
CHSM72N-HC-570
Difference
Module efficiency
23.30 %
22.10 %
1.20 pp more efficient
Rated power
725 Wp
570 Wp
155 W more power
Power density
233.4 Wp/m²
220.7 Wp/m²
12.7 Wp/m² higher
Weight
38.0 kg
26.9 kg
11.1 kg lighter
Product warranty
15 yrs
12 yrs
3 yrs longer
Short-circuit current
18.63 A
14.10 A
4.53 A apart
Module area
3.106 m²
2.583 m²
0.523 m² apart
Weight per kWp
52.4 kg/kWp
47.2 kg/kWp
5.2 kg/kWp lighter
Current at max power
17.69 A
13.45 A
4.24 A apart
Cell count
132
144
12 cells apart
Bifacial
Yes
No
Yes vs No
Open-circuit voltage
49.37 V
50.85 V
1.48 V apart
Dimensions
2384x1303x33 mm
2278x1134x35 mm
2384x1303x33 mm vs 2278x1134x35 mm
Voltage at max power
40.98 V
42.38 V
1.40 V 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
Same temp coeff. for both panels (-0.290 %/°C), so a warmer roof scales both curves by the same factor: the totals fall together and neither panel gains on the other.
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725
24,325 kWh
CHSM72N-HC-570
19,125 kWh
Lifetime gap
5,200 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725
CHSM72N-HC-570
Standard test conditions
25 °C
100.0% of rated power
725 W
570 W
Cool, bright day
40 °C
95.7% of rated power
693 W
545 W
Typical summer roof
55 °C
91.3% of rated power
662 W
520 W
Hot roof
70 °C
87.0% of rated power
630 W
496 W
03
Full specification
Parameter
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725
CHSM72N-HC-570
Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power
725 Wp
570 Wp
+155 W for CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725
Module efficiency
23.30 %
22.10 %
+1.20 pp for CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725
Power density
233.4 Wp/m²
220.7 Wp/m²
+12.7 Wp/m² for CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725
Open-circuit voltage
49.37 V
50.85 V
1.48 V apart
Voltage at max power
40.98 V
42.38 V
1.40 V apart
Short-circuit current
18.63 A
14.10 A
4.53 A apart
Current at max power
17.69 A
13.45 A
4.24 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient
-0.290 %/°C
-0.290 %/°C
Same
Mechanical
Dimensions
2384x1303x33 mm
2278x1134x35 mm
2384x1303x33 mm vs 2278x1134x35 mm
Module area
3.106 m²
2.583 m²
0.523 m² apart
Weight
38.0 kg
26.9 kg
-11.1 kg for CHSM72N-HC-570
Weight per kWp
52.4 kg/kWp
47.2 kg/kWp
-5.2 kg/kWp for CHSM72N-HC-570
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty
15 yrs
12 yrs
+3 yrs for CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725
Performance warranty
30 yrs
30 yrs
Same
Annual degradation
0.40 %/yr
0.40 %/yr
Same
Technology
Cell technology
TOPCon
TOPCon
Same
Cell type
Monocrystalline
Monocrystalline
Same
Cell count
132
144
12 cells apart
Bifacial
Yes
No
Yes vs No
04
14,005 panels
Against the whole database
Efficiency
#1,017
vs
#6,012
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725 leads by 4,995 places
Power density
#936
vs
#6,058
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725 leads by 5,122 places
Heat behaviour
#2,165
vs
#2,165
Tied - the same position in the database
Weight
#5,889
vs
#1,577
CHSM72N-HC-570 leads by 4,312 places
Warranty
#21
vs
#21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#266
vs
#5,137
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725 leads by 4,871 places
05
Open the full database
More useful comparisons
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725 vs Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725 vs Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725 vs Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-720
The same specification on paper
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725 vs Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-715
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725 vs Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-710
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-570 vs Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-580
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06
Written summary
Checking cache...
07
Questions about this pairing
Which panel is better: Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725 or Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-570?
According to our database: Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725 has higher module efficiency (23.30% vs 22.10%). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725 and Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-570?
Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725 has a module efficiency of 23.30%, while Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-570 is 22.10%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725 use vs Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-570?
Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725 uses TOPCon cells; Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-570 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 Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725 and Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-570?
Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725 has a 30 years power warranty; Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-570 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 Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725 and Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-570 bifacial panels?
Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725 is bifacial (captures light from both faces); Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-570 is monofacial. Bifacial panels work best on ground mounts or raised structures with a light-coloured surface underneath.
Shop prices: See 40 Astronergy 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.

