Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ vs Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735
VS
The verdict
CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ leads on the differences that matter
The largest is module efficiency: 1.10 pp more efficient. 7 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.
See all 12 differencesHow alike are they
7
of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
parameters are identical
identical
differs
01
12 of 19 parameters
What actually differs
Parameter
CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735
Difference
Module efficiency
24.80 %
23.70 %
1.10 pp more efficient
Rated power
670 Wp
735 Wp
65 W more power
Power density
248.0 Wp/m²
236.6 Wp/m²
11.4 Wp/m² higher
Temperature coefficient
-0.260 %/°C
-0.290 %/°C
0.030 %/°C better in heat
Weight
32.0 kg
38.0 kg
6.0 kg lighter
Module area
2.701 m²
3.106 m²
0.405 m² apart
Short-circuit current
16.87 A
18.72 A
1.85 A apart
Weight per kWp
47.8 kg/kWp
51.7 kg/kWp
3.9 kg/kWp lighter
Annual degradation
0.35 %/yr
0.40 %/yr
0.05 %/yr slower
Cell count
264
132
132 cells apart
Current at max power
16.09 A
17.75 A
1.66 A apart
Dimensions
2382x1134x30 mm
2384x1303x33 mm
2382x1134x30 mm vs 2384x1303x33 mm
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
CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ
22,655 kWh
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735
24,661 kWh
Lifetime gap
2,006 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario
CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735
Standard test conditions
25 °C
100.0% of rated power
670 W
735 W
Cool, bright day
40 °C
95.7% of rated power
644 W
703 W
Typical summer roof
55 °C
91.3% of rated power
618 W
671 W
Hot roof
70 °C
87.0% of rated power
592 W
639 W
03
Full specification
Parameter
CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735
Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power
670 Wp
735 Wp
+65 W for CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735
Module efficiency
24.80 %
23.70 %
+1.10 pp for CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ
Power density
248.0 Wp/m²
236.6 Wp/m²
+11.4 Wp/m² for CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ
Open-circuit voltage
49.58 V
49.77 V
Effectively the same
Voltage at max power
41.65 V
41.41 V
Effectively the same
Short-circuit current
16.87 A
18.72 A
1.85 A apart
Current at max power
16.09 A
17.75 A
1.66 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient
-0.260 %/°C
-0.290 %/°C
+0.030 %/°C for CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ
Mechanical
Dimensions
2382x1134x30 mm
2384x1303x33 mm
2382x1134x30 mm vs 2384x1303x33 mm
Module area
2.701 m²
3.106 m²
0.405 m² apart
Weight
32.0 kg
38.0 kg
-6.0 kg for CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ
Weight per kWp
47.8 kg/kWp
51.7 kg/kWp
-3.9 kg/kWp for CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty
15 yrs
15 yrs
Same
Performance warranty
30 yrs
30 yrs
Same
Annual degradation
0.35 %/yr
0.40 %/yr
-0.05 %/yr for CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ
Technology
Cell technology
TOPCon
TOPCon
Same
Cell type
Monocrystalline
Monocrystalline
Same
Cell count
264
132
132 cells apart
Bifacial
Yes
Yes
Same
04
14,005 panels
Against the whole database
Efficiency
#12
vs
#517
CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ leads by 505 places
Power density
#14
vs
#582
CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ leads by 568 places
Heat behaviour
#511
vs
#2,165
CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ leads by 1,654 places
Weight
#1,884
vs
#5,081
CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ leads by 3,197 places
Warranty
#21
vs
#21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#295
vs
#160
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735 leads by 135 places
05
Open the full database
More useful comparisons
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ vs Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-670
The same specification on paper
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ vs Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-665
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ vs Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-660
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ vs Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-655
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ vs Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-650
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ vs Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06
Written summary
Checking cache...
07
Questions about this pairing
Which panel is better: Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ or Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735?
According to our database: Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ has higher module efficiency (24.80% vs 23.70%); Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ 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-BQ and Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735?
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ has a module efficiency of 24.80%, 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 CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ use vs Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735?
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ 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 CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ and Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735?
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ 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 CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ and Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735 bifacial panels?
Both Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ and Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735 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 37 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.

