Skip to main content
66TM-615 vs 48TD-455 7 of 19 identical Swap Change panels

Canadian Solar CS6.2-66TM-615 vs Canadian Solar CS6.2-48TD-455

Canadian Solar CS6.2-66TM-615
CS6.2-66TM-615
615 Wp 22.80 % TOPCon
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
VS
Canadian Solar CS6.2-48TD-455
CS6.2-48TD-455
455 Wp 22.80 % TOPCon Bifacial
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
The verdict

12 differences, and they point both ways

The largest is rated power: 160 W more power. 7 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.

See all 12 differences
How alike are they
7 of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
identical differs
01

What actually differs

12 of 19 parameters
Parameter 66TM-615 48TD-455 Difference
Rated power 615 Wp 455 Wp 160 W more power
Weight per kWp 45.7 kg/kWp 54.1 kg/kWp 8.4 kg/kWp lighter
Product warranty 12 yrs 25 yrs 13 yrs longer
Weight 28.1 kg 24.6 kg 3.5 kg lighter
Open-circuit voltage 48.20 V 53.10 V 4.90 V apart
Short-circuit current 16.02 A 10.75 A 5.27 A apart
Module area 2.701 m² 1.998 m² 0.703 m² apart
Voltage at max power 41.00 V 45.00 V 4.00 V apart
Current at max power 15.01 A 10.12 A 4.89 A apart
Cell count 132 144 12 cells apart
Bifacial No Yes No vs Yes
Dimensions 2382x1134x30 mm 1762x1134x30 mm 2382x1134x30 mm vs 1762x1134x30 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
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.
66TM-615
20,634 kWh
48TD-455
15,266 kWh
Lifetime gap
5,368 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario 66TM-615 48TD-455
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 615 W 455 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.7% of rated power 588 W 435 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.3% of rated power 561 W 415 W
Hot roof 70 °C 87.0% of rated power 535 W 396 W
03

Full specification

Parameter 66TM-615 48TD-455 Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 615 Wp 455 Wp +160 W for 66TM-615
Module efficiency 22.80 % 22.80 % Same
Power density 227.7 Wp/m² 227.7 Wp/m² Same
Open-circuit voltage 48.20 V 53.10 V 4.90 V apart
Voltage at max power 41.00 V 45.00 V 4.00 V apart
Short-circuit current 16.02 A 10.75 A 5.27 A apart
Current at max power 15.01 A 10.12 A 4.89 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.290 %/°C Same
Mechanical
Dimensions 2382x1134x30 mm 1762x1134x30 mm 2382x1134x30 mm vs 1762x1134x30 mm
Module area 2.701 m² 1.998 m² 0.703 m² apart
Weight 28.1 kg 24.6 kg -3.5 kg for 48TD-455
Weight per kWp 45.7 kg/kWp 54.1 kg/kWp -8.4 kg/kWp for 66TM-615
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty 12 yrs 25 yrs +13 yrs for 48TD-455
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 No Yes No vs Yes
04

Against the whole database

14,005 panels
Efficiency
#2,714 vs #2,714
Tied - the same position in the database
Power density
#3,077 vs #2,888
48TD-455 leads by 189 places
Heat behaviour
#2,165 vs #2,165
Tied - the same position in the database
Weight
#844 vs #8,287
66TM-615 leads by 7,443 places
Warranty
#21 vs #21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#2,792 vs #5,669
66TM-615 leads by 2,877 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
Canadian Solar CS6.2-66TM-615 vs Canadian Solar CS6.2-66TM-635
4 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Canadian Solar CS6.2-66TM-615 vs Canadian Solar CS6.2-66TM-630
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Canadian Solar CS6.2-66TM-615 vs Canadian Solar CS6.2-66TM-625
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Canadian Solar CS6.2-66TM-615 vs Canadian Solar CS6.2-66TM-620
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Canadian Solar CS6.2-66TM-615 vs Canadian Solar CS6.2-66TM-610
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Canadian Solar CS6.2-66TM-615 vs Canadian Solar CS6W-600T
10 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06

Written summary

07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: Canadian Solar CS6.2-66TM-615 or Canadian Solar CS6.2-48TD-455?
According to our database: both panels are closely matched on key specs - the decision often comes down to price and local availability. See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of Canadian Solar CS6.2-66TM-615 and Canadian Solar CS6.2-48TD-455?
Canadian Solar CS6.2-66TM-615 has a module efficiency of 22.80%, while Canadian Solar CS6.2-48TD-455 is 22.80%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Canadian Solar CS6.2-66TM-615 use vs Canadian Solar CS6.2-48TD-455?
Canadian Solar CS6.2-66TM-615 uses TOPCon cells; Canadian Solar CS6.2-48TD-455 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 Canadian Solar CS6.2-66TM-615 and Canadian Solar CS6.2-48TD-455?
Canadian Solar CS6.2-66TM-615 has a 30 years power warranty; Canadian Solar CS6.2-48TD-455 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 Canadian Solar CS6.2-66TM-615 and Canadian Solar CS6.2-48TD-455 bifacial panels?
Canadian Solar CS6.2-48TD-455 is bifacial (captures light from both faces); Canadian Solar CS6.2-66TM-615 is monofacial. Bifacial panels work best on ground mounts or raised structures with a light-coloured surface underneath.

Shop prices: See 40 Canadian Solar 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.