Skip to main content
BH-605 vs BQ-665 9 of 19 identical Swap Change panels

Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BH-605 vs Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-665

Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BH-605
CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BH-605
605 Wp 22.40 % TOPCon Bifacial
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
VS
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-665
CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-665
665 Wp 24.60 % TOPCon Bifacial
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
The verdict

BQ-665 leads on the differences that matter

The largest is module efficiency: 2.20 pp more efficient. 9 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.

See all 10 differences
How alike are they
9 of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
identical differs
01

What actually differs

10 of 19 parameters
Parameter BH-605 BQ-665 Difference
Module efficiency 22.40 % 24.60 % 2.20 pp more efficient
Rated power 605 Wp 665 Wp 60 W more power
Power density 224.0 Wp/m² 246.2 Wp/m² 22.2 Wp/m² higher
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.260 %/°C 0.030 %/°C better in heat
Weight per kWp 55.4 kg/kWp 48.1 kg/kWp 7.3 kg/kWp lighter
Weight 33.5 kg 32.0 kg 1.5 kg lighter
Annual degradation 0.40 %/yr 0.35 %/yr 0.05 %/yr slower
Cell count 132 264 132 cells apart
Short-circuit current 15.86 A 16.80 A 0.94 A apart
Current at max power 14.69 A 16.02 A 1.33 A 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
BH-605
20,299 kWh
BQ-665
22,486 kWh
Lifetime gap
2,187 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario BH-605 BQ-665
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 605 W 665 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.7% of rated power 579 W 639 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.3% of rated power 552 W 613 W
Hot roof 70 °C 87.0% of rated power 526 W 587 W
03

Full specification

Parameter BH-605 BQ-665 Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 605 Wp 665 Wp +60 W for BQ-665
Module efficiency 22.40 % 24.60 % +2.20 pp for BQ-665
Power density 224.0 Wp/m² 246.2 Wp/m² +22.2 Wp/m² for BQ-665
Open-circuit voltage 48.59 V 49.43 V Effectively the same
Voltage at max power 41.18 V 41.52 V Effectively the same
Short-circuit current 15.86 A 16.80 A 0.94 A apart
Current at max power 14.69 A 16.02 A 1.33 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.260 %/°C +0.030 %/°C for BQ-665
Mechanical
Dimensions 2382x1134x30 mm 2382x1134x30 mm Same
Module area 2.701 m² 2.701 m² Same
Weight 33.5 kg 32.0 kg -1.5 kg for BQ-665
Weight per kWp 55.4 kg/kWp 48.1 kg/kWp -7.3 kg/kWp for BQ-665
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty 15 yrs 15 yrs Same
Performance warranty 30 yrs 30 yrs Same
Annual degradation 0.40 %/yr 0.35 %/yr -0.05 %/yr for BQ-665
Technology
Cell technology TOPCon TOPCon Same
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 132 264 132 cells apart
Bifacial Yes Yes Same
04

Against the whole database

14,005 panels
Efficiency
#4,774 vs #51
BQ-665 leads by 4,723 places
Power density
#4,780 vs #42
BQ-665 leads by 4,738 places
Heat behaviour
#2,165 vs #511
BQ-665 leads by 1,654 places
Weight
#9,806 vs #2,069
BQ-665 leads by 7,737 places
Warranty
#21 vs #21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#3,097 vs #401
BQ-665 leads by 2,696 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BH-605 vs Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-670
10 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BH-605 vs Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ
10 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BH-605 vs Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-660
10 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BH-605 vs Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-655
10 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BH-605 vs Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BH-650W
9 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BH-605 vs Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BH-650
9 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06

Written summary

07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BH-605 or Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-665?
According to our database: Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-665 has higher module efficiency (24.60% vs 22.40%); Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-665 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 Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BH-605 and Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-665?
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BH-605 has a module efficiency of 22.40%, while Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-665 is 24.60%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BH-605 use vs Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-665?
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BH-605 uses TOPCon cells; Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-665 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 CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BH-605 and Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-665?
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BH-605 has a 30 years power warranty; Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-665 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 CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BH-605 and Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-665 bifacial panels?
Both Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BH-605 and Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-665 are bifacial - they capture reflected light from the ground, which can add 5-15% more annual energy on ground-mount or elevated rooftop installations with a light surface beneath.

Shop prices: See 41 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.