HT72-18X 540W vs HT66-210(ND)-F 705W 3 of 18 identical Swap Change panels

HT-SAAE HT72-18X 540W vs HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705W

Q: Which panel is better: HT-SAAE HT72-18X 540W or HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705W?

According to our database: HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705W has higher module efficiency (22.70% vs 20.90%); HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705W tolerates heat better (temp coeff -0.310%/°C vs -0.330%/°C). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.

Q: What is the efficiency of HT-SAAE HT72-18X 540W and HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705W?

HT-SAAE HT72-18X 540W has a module efficiency of 20.90%, while HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705W is 22.70%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.

Q: What cell technology does HT-SAAE HT72-18X 540W use vs HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705W?

HT-SAAE HT72-18X 540W uses PERC cells; HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705W uses TOPCon. Modern n-type technologies (TOPCon, HJT, BC) typically deliver higher efficiency and lower degradation compared to older PERC (p-type) cells.

Q: What is the warranty on HT-SAAE HT72-18X 540W and HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705W?

HT-SAAE HT72-18X 540W has a 25 years power warranty; HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705W 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.

Q: Are HT-SAAE HT72-18X 540W and HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705W bifacial panels?

HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705W is bifacial (captures light from both faces); HT-SAAE HT72-18X 540W is monofacial. Bifacial panels work best on ground mounts or raised structures with a light-coloured surface underneath.

HT-SAAE

HT72-18X 540W

540 Wp 20.90 % PERC Incomplete

Open panel page Datasheet PDF

HT-SAAE

HT66-210(ND)-F 705W

705 Wp 22.70 % TOPCon Bifacial

Open panel page Datasheet PDF

The verdict

HT66-210(ND)-F 705W leads on the differences that matter

The largest is module efficiency: 1.80 pp more efficient. 3 of 18 comparable parameters are identical, with 1 more left out because at least one datasheet does not publish it.

See all 15 differences

How alike are they

3 of 18 comparable
parameters are identical

identical differs not published

What actually differs

15 of 18 parameters

Parameter HT72-18X 540W HT66-210(ND)-F 705W Difference

Module efficiency 20.90 % 22.70 % 1.80 pp more efficient

Rated power 540 Wp 705 Wp 165 W more power

Power density 208.9 Wp/m² 227.0 Wp/m² 18.0 Wp/m² higher

Performance warranty 25 yrs 30 yrs 5 yrs longer

Weight 28.5 kg 38.5 kg 10.0 kg lighter

Product warranty 25 yrs 30 yrs 5 yrs longer

Temperature coefficient -0.330 %/°C -0.310 %/°C 0.020 %/°C better in heat

Short-circuit current 13.90 A 18.41 A 4.51 A apart

Module area 2.584 m² 3.106 m² 0.522 m² apart

Cell technology PERC TOPCon PERC vs TOPCon

Current at max power 12.97 A 17.16 A 4.19 A apart

Cell count 144 132 12 cells apart

Open-circuit voltage 49.50 V 48.00 V 1.50 V apart

Bifacial No Yes No vs Yes

Dimensions 2279x1134x35 mm 2384x1303x35 mm 2279x1134x35 mm vs 2384x1303x35 mm

What it means on a roof

Thirty years of production

Declared first-year losses, with 0.40% a year afterwards assumed for both panels, at 1,200 kWh/kWp a year

Cell temperature

HT72-18X 540W

17,826 kWh

HT66-210(ND)-F 705W

23,654 kWh

Lifetime gap

5,828 kWh

Output when it is hot

Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees

Scenario HT72-18X 540W HT66-210(ND)-F 705W

Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 540 W 705 W

Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.0% of rated power 513 W 672 W

Typical summer roof 55 °C 90.1% of rated power 487 W 639 W

Hot roof 70 °C 85.2% of rated power 460 W 607 W

Full specification

Parameter HT72-18X 540W HT66-210(ND)-F 705W Difference

Power and efficiency

Rated power 540 Wp 705 Wp +165 W for HT66-210(ND)-F 705W

Module efficiency 20.90 % 22.70 % +1.80 pp for HT66-210(ND)-F 705W

Power density 208.9 Wp/m² 227.0 Wp/m² +18.0 Wp/m² for HT66-210(ND)-F 705W

Open-circuit voltage 49.50 V 48.00 V 1.50 V apart

Voltage at max power 41.65 V 41.10 V Effectively the same

Short-circuit current 13.90 A 18.41 A 4.51 A apart

Current at max power 12.97 A 17.16 A 4.19 A apart

Temperature

Temperature coefficient -0.330 %/°C -0.310 %/°C +0.020 %/°C for HT66-210(ND)-F 705W

Mechanical

Dimensions 2279x1134x35 mm 2384x1303x35 mm 2279x1134x35 mm vs 2384x1303x35 mm

Module area 2.584 m² 3.106 m² 0.522 m² apart

Weight 28.5 kg 38.5 kg -10.0 kg for HT72-18X 540W

Weight per kWp 52.8 kg/kWp 54.6 kg/kWp Effectively the same

Warranty and degradation

Product warranty 25 yrs 30 yrs +5 yrs for HT66-210(ND)-F 705W

Performance warranty 25 yrs 30 yrs +5 yrs for HT66-210(ND)-F 705W

Annual degradation - 0.40 %/yr Not published by HT-SAAE

Technology

Cell technology PERC TOPCon PERC vs TOPCon

Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same

Cell count 144 132 12 cells apart

Bifacial No Yes No vs Yes

Against the whole database

14,129 panels

Efficiency

#10,148 vs #3,364

HT66-210(ND)-F 705W leads by 6,784 places

Power density

#10,278 vs #3,418

HT66-210(ND)-F 705W leads by 6,860 places

Heat behaviour

#8,613 vs #8,069

HT66-210(ND)-F 705W leads by 544 places

Weight

#6,505 vs #9,041

HT72-18X 540W leads by 2,536 places

Warranty

#9,912 vs #21

HT66-210(ND)-F 705W leads by 9,891 places

Overall

#6,034 vs #85

HT66-210(ND)-F 705W leads by 5,949 places

More useful comparisons

Open the full database

Same series, other bin

HT-SAAE

HT-SAAE HT72-18X 540W vs HT-SAAE HT72-18X 560W

3 differences, the largest is module efficiency

Same series, other bin

HT-SAAE

HT-SAAE HT72-18X 540W vs HT-SAAE HT72-18X 555W

3 differences, the largest is module efficiency

Same series, other bin

HT-SAAE

HT-SAAE HT72-18X 540W vs HT-SAAE HT72-18X 550W

3 differences, the largest is module efficiency

Same series, other bin

HT-SAAE

HT-SAAE HT72-18X 540W vs HT-SAAE HT72-18X 545W

One difference: module efficiency

Same series, other bin

HT-SAAE

HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705W vs HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 715W

3 differences, the largest is module efficiency

Same series, other bin

HT-SAAE

HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705W vs HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 710W

One difference: module efficiency

Written summary

Checking cache...

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: HT-SAAE HT72-18X 540W or HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705W?

According to our database: HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705 W has higher module efficiency (22.70% vs 20.90%); HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705 W tolerates heat better (temp coeff -0.310%/°C vs -0.330%/°C). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.

What is the efficiency of HT-SAAE HT72-18X 540W and HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705W?

HT-SAAE HT72-18X 540 W has a module efficiency of 20.90%, while HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705 W is 22.70%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.

What cell technology does HT-SAAE HT72-18X 540W use vs HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705W?

HT-SAAE HT72-18X 540 W uses PERC cells; HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705 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 HT-SAAE HT72-18X 540W and HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705W?

HT-SAAE HT72-18X 540 W has a 25 years power warranty; HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705 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 HT-SAAE HT72-18X 540W and HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705W bifacial panels?

HT-SAAE HT66-210(ND)-F 705 W is bifacial (captures light from both faces); HT-SAAE HT72-18X 540 W is monofacial. Bifacial panels work best on ground mounts or raised structures with a light-coloured surface underneath.

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.