Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-580 vs Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730
VS
The verdict
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730 leads on the differences that matter
The largest is module efficiency: 1.00 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-580
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730
Difference
Module efficiency
22.50 %
23.50 %
1.00 pp more efficient
Rated power
580 Wp
730 Wp
150 W more power
Power density
224.5 Wp/m²
235.0 Wp/m²
10.5 Wp/m² higher
Weight
26.9 kg
38.0 kg
11.1 kg lighter
Product warranty
12 yrs
15 yrs
3 yrs longer
Weight per kWp
46.4 kg/kWp
52.1 kg/kWp
5.7 kg/kWp lighter
Short-circuit current
14.30 A
18.67 A
4.37 A apart
Module area
2.583 m²
3.106 m²
0.523 m² apart
Current at max power
13.61 A
17.70 A
4.09 A apart
Cell count
144
132
12 cells apart
Open-circuit voltage
51.15 V
49.57 V
1.58 V apart
Bifacial
No
Yes
No vs Yes
Dimensions
2278x1134x35 mm
2384x1303x33 mm
2278x1134x35 mm vs 2384x1303x33 mm
Voltage at max power
42.63 V
41.24 V
1.39 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-580
19,460 kWh
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730
24,493 kWh
Lifetime gap
5,033 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario
CHSM72N-HC-580
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730
Standard test conditions
25 °C
100.0% of rated power
580 W
730 W
Cool, bright day
40 °C
95.7% of rated power
555 W
698 W
Typical summer roof
55 °C
91.3% of rated power
530 W
666 W
Hot roof
70 °C
87.0% of rated power
504 W
635 W
03
Full specification
Parameter
CHSM72N-HC-580
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730
Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power
580 Wp
730 Wp
+150 W for CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730
Module efficiency
22.50 %
23.50 %
+1.00 pp for CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730
Power density
224.5 Wp/m²
235.0 Wp/m²
+10.5 Wp/m² for CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730
Open-circuit voltage
51.15 V
49.57 V
1.58 V apart
Voltage at max power
42.63 V
41.24 V
1.39 V apart
Short-circuit current
14.30 A
18.67 A
4.37 A apart
Current at max power
13.61 A
17.70 A
4.09 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-580
Weight per kWp
46.4 kg/kWp
52.1 kg/kWp
-5.7 kg/kWp for CHSM72N-HC-580
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty
12 yrs
15 yrs
+3 yrs for CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730
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
#4,222
vs
#716
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730 leads by 3,506 places
Power density
#4,547
vs
#800
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730 leads by 3,747 places
Heat behaviour
#2,165
vs
#2,165
Tied - the same position in the database
Weight
#1,132
vs
#5,495
CHSM72N-HC-580 leads by 4,363 places
Warranty
#21
vs
#21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#4,367
vs
#199
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730 leads by 4,168 places
05
Open the full database
More useful comparisons
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-580 vs Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-575
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-580 vs Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-570
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-580 vs Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-565
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730 vs Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730 vs Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-725
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730 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-580 or Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730?
According to our database: Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730 has higher module efficiency (23.50% vs 22.50%). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-580 and Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730?
Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-580 has a module efficiency of 22.50%, while Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730 is 23.50%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-580 use vs Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730?
Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-580 uses TOPCon cells; Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730 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-580 and Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730?
Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-580 has a 30 years power warranty; Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730 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-580 and Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730 bifacial panels?
Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-730 is bifacial (captures light from both faces); Astronergy CHSM72N-HC-580 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.

