Skip to main content
3SHBGH-C#-640 vs HY-NT10/72GDF-600W 5 of 19 identical Swap Change panels

GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-640 vs GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-600W

GL Solar
3SHBGH-C#-640
640 Wp 22.60 % HJT Bifacial
VS
GL Solar
HY-NT10/72GDF-600W
600 Wp 23.20 % TOPCon Bifacial
The verdict

14 differences, and they point both ways

The largest is rated power: 40 W more power. 5 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.

See all 14 differences
How alike are they
5 of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
identical differs
01

What actually differs

14 of 19 parameters
Parameter 3SHBGH-C#-640 HY-NT10/72GDF-600W Difference
Rated power 640 Wp 600 Wp 40 W more power
Temperature coefficient -0.260 %/°C -0.290 %/°C 0.030 %/°C better in heat
Module efficiency 22.60 % 23.20 % 0.60 pp more efficient
Weight 36.0 kg 32.1 kg 3.9 kg lighter
Power density 226.1 Wp/m² 232.3 Wp/m² 6.1 Wp/m² higher
Open-circuit voltage 45.70 V 52.55 V 6.85 V apart
Short-circuit current 17.56 A 14.25 A 3.31 A apart
Module area 2.830 m² 2.583 m² 0.247 m² apart
Cell technology HJT TOPCon HJT vs TOPCon
Weight per kWp 56.2 kg/kWp 53.5 kg/kWp 2.7 kg/kWp lighter
Voltage at max power 38.91 V 44.54 V 5.63 V apart
Current at max power 16.46 A 13.48 A 2.98 A apart
Cell count 120 144 24 cells apart
Dimensions 2172x1303x35 mm 2278x1134x30 mm 2172x1303x35 mm vs 2278x1134x30 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
3SHBGH-C#-640
21,243 kWh
HY-NT10/72GDF-600W
20,131 kWh
Lifetime gap
1,112 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario 3SHBGH-C#-640 HY-NT10/72GDF-600W
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 640 W 600 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.7% of rated power 615 W 574 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.3% of rated power 590 W 548 W
Hot roof 70 °C 87.0% of rated power 565 W 522 W
03

Full specification

Parameter 3SHBGH-C#-640 HY-NT10/72GDF-600W Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 640 Wp 600 Wp +40 W for 3SHBGH-C#-640
Module efficiency 22.60 % 23.20 % +0.60 pp for HY-NT10/72GDF-600W
Power density 226.1 Wp/m² 232.3 Wp/m² +6.1 Wp/m² for HY-NT10/72GDF-600W
Open-circuit voltage 45.70 V 52.55 V 6.85 V apart
Voltage at max power 38.91 V 44.54 V 5.63 V apart
Short-circuit current 17.56 A 14.25 A 3.31 A apart
Current at max power 16.46 A 13.48 A 2.98 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.260 %/°C -0.290 %/°C +0.030 %/°C for 3SHBGH-C#-640
Mechanical
Dimensions 2172x1303x35 mm 2278x1134x30 mm 2172x1303x35 mm vs 2278x1134x30 mm
Module area 2.830 m² 2.583 m² 0.247 m² apart
Weight 36.0 kg 32.1 kg -3.9 kg for HY-NT10/72GDF-600W
Weight per kWp 56.2 kg/kWp 53.5 kg/kWp -2.7 kg/kWp for HY-NT10/72GDF-600W
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty 15 yrs 15 yrs Same
Performance warranty 30 yrs 30 yrs Same
Annual degradation 0.40 %/yr 0.40 %/yr Same
Technology
Cell technology HJT TOPCon HJT vs TOPCon
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 120 144 24 cells apart
Bifacial Yes Yes Same
04

Against the whole database

14,005 panels
Efficiency
#3,658 vs #1,306
HY-NT10/72GDF-600W leads by 2,352 places
Power density
#3,681 vs #1,252
HY-NT10/72GDF-600W leads by 2,429 places
Heat behaviour
#511 vs #2,165
3SHBGH-C#-640 leads by 1,654 places
Weight
#10,518 vs #7,477
HY-NT10/72GDF-600W leads by 3,041 places
Warranty
#21 vs #21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#1,906 vs #2,413
3SHBGH-C#-640 leads by 507 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
GL Solar
GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-640 vs GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-635
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
GL Solar
GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-640 vs GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-630
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
GL Solar
GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-640 vs GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-625
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
GL Solar
GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-640 vs GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-620
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
GL Solar
GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-640 vs GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-615
4 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
GL Solar
GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-640 vs GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-610
5 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06

Written summary

Checking cache...
07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-640 or GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-600W?
According to our database: GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-600 W has higher module efficiency (23.20% vs 22.60%); GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-640 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 GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-640 and GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-600W?
GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-640 has a module efficiency of 22.60%, while GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-600 W is 23.20%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-640 use vs GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-600W?
GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-640 uses HJT cells; GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-600 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 GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-640 and GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-600W?
GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-640 has a 30 years power warranty; GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-600 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 GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-640 and GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-600W bifacial panels?
Both GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-640 and GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-600 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 2 GL 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.