DAH Solar DHN-66Y18/DG-725 vs DAH Solar DHN-78X16/DG-630W
VS
The verdict
66Y18/DG-725 leads on the differences that matter
The largest is module efficiency: 0.80 pp more efficient. 6 of 18 comparable parameters are identical, with 1 more left out because at least one datasheet does not publish it.
See all 12 differencesHow alike are they
6
of 18 comparable
parameters are identical
parameters are identical
identical
differs
not published
01
12 of 18 parameters
What actually differs
Parameter
66Y18/DG-725
78X16/DG-630W
Difference
Module efficiency
23.34 %
22.54 %
0.80 pp more efficient
Rated power
725 Wp
630 Wp
95 W more power
Power density
233.4 Wp/m²
225.4 Wp/m²
8.0 Wp/m² higher
Open-circuit voltage
48.60 V
56.00 V
7.40 V apart
Short-circuit current
18.79 A
14.20 A
4.59 A apart
Module area
3.106 m²
2.795 m²
0.311 m² apart
Weight
36.7 kg
34.2 kg
2.5 kg lighter
Weight per kWp
50.6 kg/kWp
54.3 kg/kWp
3.7 kg/kWp lighter
Voltage at max power
41.00 V
47.20 V
6.20 V apart
Current at max power
17.68 A
13.35 A
4.33 A apart
Cell count
132
156
24 cells apart
Dimensions
2384x1303x33 mm
2465x1134x34 mm
2384x1303x33 mm vs 2465x1134x34 mm
02
What it means on a roof
Thirty years of production
A 1.0% first-year loss then 0.40% a year, assumed for both panels, 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.
66Y18/DG-725
24,325 kWh
78X16/DG-630W
21,138 kWh
Lifetime gap
3,187 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario
66Y18/DG-725
78X16/DG-630W
Standard test conditions
25 °C
100.0% of rated power
725 W
630 W
Cool, bright day
40 °C
95.7% of rated power
693 W
603 W
Typical summer roof
55 °C
91.3% of rated power
662 W
575 W
Hot roof
70 °C
87.0% of rated power
630 W
548 W
03
Full specification
Parameter
66Y18/DG-725
78X16/DG-630W
Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power
725 Wp
630 Wp
+95 W for 66Y18/DG-725
Module efficiency
23.34 %
22.54 %
+0.80 pp for 66Y18/DG-725
Power density
233.4 Wp/m²
225.4 Wp/m²
+8.0 Wp/m² for 66Y18/DG-725
Open-circuit voltage
48.60 V
56.00 V
7.40 V apart
Voltage at max power
41.00 V
47.20 V
6.20 V apart
Short-circuit current
18.79 A
14.20 A
4.59 A apart
Current at max power
17.68 A
13.35 A
4.33 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient
-0.290 %/°C
-0.290 %/°C
Same
Mechanical
Dimensions
2384x1303x33 mm
2465x1134x34 mm
2384x1303x33 mm vs 2465x1134x34 mm
Module area
3.106 m²
2.795 m²
0.311 m² apart
Weight
36.7 kg
34.2 kg
-2.5 kg for 78X16/DG-630W
Weight per kWp
50.6 kg/kWp
54.3 kg/kWp
-3.7 kg/kWp for 66Y18/DG-725
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty
15 yrs
15 yrs
Same
Performance warranty
30 yrs
30 yrs
Same
Annual degradation
0.40 %/yr
-
Not published by DAH Solar
Technology
Cell technology
TOPCon
TOPCon
Same
Cell type
Monocrystalline
Monocrystalline
Same
Cell count
132
156
24 cells apart
Bifacial
Yes
Yes
Same
04
14,005 panels
Against the whole database
Efficiency
#943
vs
#3,920
66Y18/DG-725 leads by 2,977 places
Power density
#936
vs
#3,907
66Y18/DG-725 leads by 2,971 places
Heat behaviour
#2,165
vs
#2,165
Tied - the same position in the database
Weight
#4,067
vs
#8,524
66Y18/DG-725 leads by 4,457 places
Warranty
#21
vs
#21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#251
vs
#2,179
66Y18/DG-725 leads by 1,928 places
05
Open the full database
More useful comparisons
Same series, other bin
DAH Solar
DAH Solar DHN-66Y18/DG-725 vs DAH Solar DHN-66Y18/DG-720
The same specification on paper
Same series, other bin
DAH Solar
DAH Solar DHN-66Y18/DG-725 vs DAH Solar DHN-66Y18/DG-715
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
DAH Solar
DAH Solar DHN-66Y18/DG-725 vs DAH Solar DHN-66Y18/DG-710
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
DAH Solar
DAH Solar DHN-66Y18/DG-725 vs DAH Solar DHN-66Y18/DG-705
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
DAH Solar
DAH Solar DHN-66Y18/DG-725 vs DAH Solar DHN-66Y18/DG-700
5 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
DAH Solar
DAH Solar DHN-78X16/DG-630W vs DAH Solar DHN-78X16/DG-640W
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06
Written summary
Checking cache...
07
Questions about this pairing
Which panel is better: DAH Solar DHN-66Y18/DG-725 or DAH Solar DHN-78X16/DG-630W?
According to our database: DAH Solar DHN-66Y18/DG-725 has higher module efficiency (23.34% vs 22.54%). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of DAH Solar DHN-66Y18/DG-725 and DAH Solar DHN-78X16/DG-630W?
DAH Solar DHN-66Y18/DG-725 has a module efficiency of 23.34%, while DAH Solar DHN-78X16/DG-630 W is 22.54%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does DAH Solar DHN-66Y18/DG-725 use vs DAH Solar DHN-78X16/DG-630W?
DAH Solar DHN-66Y18/DG-725 uses TOPCon cells; DAH Solar DHN-78X16/DG-630 W 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 DAH Solar DHN-66Y18/DG-725 and DAH Solar DHN-78X16/DG-630W?
DAH Solar DHN-66Y18/DG-725 has a 30 years power warranty; DAH Solar DHN-78X16/DG-630 W 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 DAH Solar DHN-66Y18/DG-725 and DAH Solar DHN-78X16/DG-630W bifacial panels?
Both DAH Solar DHN-66Y18/DG-725 and DAH Solar DHN-78X16/DG-630 W 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 11 DAH 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.