Skip to main content
HY-NT10/72GDF-605W vs 3SHBGH-C#-630 5 of 19 identical Swap Change panels

GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-605W vs GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-630

GL Solar
HY-NT10/72GDF-605W
605 Wp 23.40 % TOPCon Bifacial
VS
GL Solar
3SHBGH-C#-630
630 Wp 22.30 % HJT Bifacial
The verdict

HY-NT10/72GDF-605W leads on the differences that matter

The largest is module efficiency: 1.10 pp more efficient. 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 HY-NT10/72GDF-605W 3SHBGH-C#-630 Difference
Module efficiency 23.40 % 22.30 % 1.10 pp more efficient
Power density 234.2 Wp/m² 222.6 Wp/m² 11.6 Wp/m² higher
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.260 %/°C 0.030 %/°C better in heat
Weight 32.1 kg 36.0 kg 3.9 kg lighter
Rated power 605 Wp 630 Wp 25 W more power
Open-circuit voltage 52.75 V 45.60 V 7.15 V apart
Short-circuit current 14.31 A 17.48 A 3.17 A apart
Module area 2.583 m² 2.830 m² 0.247 m² apart
Weight per kWp 53.1 kg/kWp 57.1 kg/kWp 4.1 kg/kWp lighter
Cell technology TOPCon HJT TOPCon vs HJT
Voltage at max power 44.74 V 38.52 V 6.22 V apart
Current at max power 13.53 A 16.36 A 2.83 A apart
Cell count 144 120 24 cells apart
Dimensions 2278x1134x30 mm 2172x1303x35 mm 2278x1134x30 mm vs 2172x1303x35 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
HY-NT10/72GDF-605W
20,299 kWh
3SHBGH-C#-630
20,911 kWh
Lifetime gap
612 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario HY-NT10/72GDF-605W 3SHBGH-C#-630
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 605 W 630 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.7% of rated power 579 W 605 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.3% of rated power 552 W 581 W
Hot roof 70 °C 87.0% of rated power 526 W 556 W
03

Full specification

Parameter HY-NT10/72GDF-605W 3SHBGH-C#-630 Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 605 Wp 630 Wp +25 W for 3SHBGH-C#-630
Module efficiency 23.40 % 22.30 % +1.10 pp for HY-NT10/72GDF-605W
Power density 234.2 Wp/m² 222.6 Wp/m² +11.6 Wp/m² for HY-NT10/72GDF-605W
Open-circuit voltage 52.75 V 45.60 V 7.15 V apart
Voltage at max power 44.74 V 38.52 V 6.22 V apart
Short-circuit current 14.31 A 17.48 A 3.17 A apart
Current at max power 13.53 A 16.36 A 2.83 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.260 %/°C +0.030 %/°C for 3SHBGH-C#-630
Mechanical
Dimensions 2278x1134x30 mm 2172x1303x35 mm 2278x1134x30 mm vs 2172x1303x35 mm
Module area 2.583 m² 2.830 m² 0.247 m² apart
Weight 32.1 kg 36.0 kg -3.9 kg for HY-NT10/72GDF-605W
Weight per kWp 53.1 kg/kWp 57.1 kg/kWp -4.1 kg/kWp for HY-NT10/72GDF-605W
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 TOPCon HJT TOPCon vs HJT
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 144 120 24 cells apart
Bifacial Yes Yes Same
04

Against the whole database

14,005 panels
Efficiency
#882 vs #5,100
HY-NT10/72GDF-605W leads by 4,218 places
Power density
#863 vs #5,501
HY-NT10/72GDF-605W leads by 4,638 places
Heat behaviour
#2,165 vs #511
3SHBGH-C#-630 leads by 1,654 places
Weight
#6,815 vs #11,083
HY-NT10/72GDF-605W leads by 4,268 places
Warranty
#21 vs #21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#2,085 vs #2,426
HY-NT10/72GDF-605W leads by 341 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
GL Solar
GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-605W vs GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-610W
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
GL Solar
GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-605W vs GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-600W
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
GL Solar
GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-605W vs GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-595W
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
GL Solar
GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-605W vs GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-590W
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
GL Solar
GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-630 vs GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-640
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
GL Solar
GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-630 vs GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-635
The same specification on paper
06

Written summary

Checking cache...
07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-605W or GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-630?
According to our database: GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-605 W has higher module efficiency (23.40% vs 22.30%); GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-630 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 HY-NT10/72GDF-605W and GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-630?
GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-605 W has a module efficiency of 23.40%, while GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-630 is 22.30%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-605W use vs GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-630?
GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-605 W uses TOPCon cells; GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-630 uses HJT. 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 HY-NT10/72GDF-605W and GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-630?
GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-605 W has a 30 years power warranty; GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-630 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 HY-NT10/72GDF-605W and GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-630 bifacial panels?
Both GL Solar HY-NT10/72GDF-605 W and GL Solar 3SHBGH-C#-630 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.