Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-575 vs Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735
VS
The verdict
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735 leads on the differences that matter
The largest is module efficiency: 1.40 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
CHSM72N-HC-575
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735
Difference
Module efficiency
22.30 %
23.70 %
1.40 pp more efficient
Rated power
575 Wp
735 Wp
160 W more power
Power density
222.6 Wp/m²
236.6 Wp/m²
14.0 Wp/m² higher
Weight
26.9 kg
38.0 kg
11.1 kg lighter
Product warranty
12 yrs
15 yrs
3 yrs longer
Short-circuit current
14.20 A
18.72 A
4.52 A apart
Module area
2.583 m²
3.106 m²
0.523 m² apart
Weight per kWp
46.8 kg/kWp
51.7 kg/kWp
4.9 kg/kWp lighter
Current at max power
13.53 A
17.75 A
4.22 A apart
Cell count
144
132
12 cells apart
Bifacial
No
Yes
No vs Yes
Open-circuit voltage
51.00 V
49.77 V
1.23 V apart
Dimensions
2278x1134x35 mm
2384x1303x33 mm
2278x1134x35 mm vs 2384x1303x33 mm
Voltage at max power
42.50 V
41.41 V
1.09 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.
CHSM72N-HC-575
19,292 kWh
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735
24,661 kWh
Lifetime gap
5,369 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario
CHSM72N-HC-575
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735
Standard test conditions
25 °C
100.0% of rated power
575 W
735 W
Cool, bright day
40 °C
95.7% of rated power
550 W
703 W
Typical summer roof
55 °C
91.3% of rated power
525 W
671 W
Hot roof
70 °C
87.0% of rated power
500 W
639 W
03
Full specification
Parameter
CHSM72N-HC-575
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735
Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power
575 Wp
735 Wp
+160 W for CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735
Module efficiency
22.30 %
23.70 %
+1.40 pp for CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735
Power density
222.6 Wp/m²
236.6 Wp/m²
+14.0 Wp/m² for CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735
Open-circuit voltage
51.00 V
49.77 V
1.23 V apart
Voltage at max power
42.50 V
41.41 V
1.09 V apart
Short-circuit current
14.20 A
18.72 A
4.52 A apart
Current at max power
13.53 A
17.75 A
4.22 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient
-0.290 %/°C
-0.290 %/°C
Same
Mechanical
Dimensions
2278x1134x35 mm
2384x1303x33 mm
2278x1134x35 mm vs 2384x1303x33 mm
Module area
2.583 m²
3.106 m²
0.523 m² apart
Weight
26.9 kg
38.0 kg
-11.1 kg for CHSM72N-HC-575
Weight per kWp
46.8 kg/kWp
51.7 kg/kWp
-4.9 kg/kWp for CHSM72N-HC-575
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty
12 yrs
15 yrs
+3 yrs for CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735
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
144
132
12 cells apart
Bifacial
No
Yes
No vs Yes
04
14,005 panels
Against the whole database
Efficiency
#5,100
vs
#517
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735 leads by 4,583 places
Power density
#5,549
vs
#582
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735 leads by 4,967 places
Heat behaviour
#2,165
vs
#2,165
Tied - the same position in the database
Weight
#1,352
vs
#5,081
CHSM72N-HC-575 leads by 3,729 places
Warranty
#21
vs
#21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#4,770
vs
#160
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735 leads by 4,610 places
05
Open the full database
More useful comparisons
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-575 vs Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-580
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-575 vs Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-570
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-575 vs Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-565
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735 vs Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735 vs Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735 vs Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-720
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06
Written summary
Checking cache...
07
Questions about this pairing
Which panel is better: Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-575 or Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735?
According to our database: Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735 has higher module efficiency (23.70% vs 22.30%). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-575 and Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735?
Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-575 has a module efficiency of 22.30%, while Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735 is 23.70%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-575 use vs Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735?
Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-575 uses TOPCon cells; Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735 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 CHSM72N-HC-575 and Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735?
Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-575 has a 30 years power warranty; Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735 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 CHSM72N-HC-575 and Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735 bifacial panels?
Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735 is bifacial (captures light from both faces); Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-575 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.

