JA Solar JAM66D45-620/LB vs AIKO AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw
VS
The verdict
AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw leads on the differences that matter
The largest is module efficiency: 1.10 pp more efficient. 2 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.
See all 17 differencesHow alike are they
2
of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
parameters are identical
identical
differs
01
17 of 19 parameters
What actually differs
Parameter
JAM66D45-620/LB
AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw
Difference
Module efficiency
23.00 %
24.10 %
1.10 pp more efficient
Rated power
620 Wp
480 Wp
140 W more power
Power density
229.5 Wp/m²
240.9 Wp/m²
11.4 Wp/m² higher
Temperature coefficient
-0.290 %/°C
-0.260 %/°C
0.030 %/°C better in heat
Weight
33.1 kg
21.5 kg
11.6 kg lighter
Weight per kWp
53.4 kg/kWp
44.8 kg/kWp
8.6 kg/kWp lighter
Product warranty
12 yrs
25 yrs
13 yrs longer
Open-circuit voltage
48.50 V
41.30 V
7.20 V apart
Module area
2.701 m²
1.992 m²
0.709 m² apart
Short-circuit current
16.13 A
14.38 A
1.75 A apart
Cell technology
TOPCon
Back Contact
TOPCon vs Back Contact
Annual degradation
0.40 %/yr
0.35 %/yr
0.05 %/yr slower
Voltage at max power
40.21 V
34.86 V
5.35 V apart
Cell count
132
108
24 cells apart
Current at max power
15.42 A
13.78 A
1.64 A apart
Bifacial
Yes
No
Yes vs No
Dimensions
2382x1134x30 mm
1757x1134x30 mm
2382x1134x30 mm vs 1757x1134x30 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
JAM66D45-620/LB
20,802 kWh
AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw
16,230 kWh
Lifetime gap
4,572 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario
JAM66D45-620/LB
AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw
Standard test conditions
25 °C
100.0% of rated power
620 W
480 W
Cool, bright day
40 °C
95.7% of rated power
593 W
461 W
Typical summer roof
55 °C
91.3% of rated power
566 W
443 W
Hot roof
70 °C
87.0% of rated power
539 W
424 W
03
Full specification
Parameter
JAM66D45-620/LB
AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw
Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power
620 Wp
480 Wp
+140 W for JAM66D45-620/LB
Module efficiency
23.00 %
24.10 %
+1.10 pp for AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw
Power density
229.5 Wp/m²
240.9 Wp/m²
+11.4 Wp/m² for AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw
Open-circuit voltage
48.50 V
41.30 V
7.20 V apart
Voltage at max power
40.21 V
34.86 V
5.35 V apart
Short-circuit current
16.13 A
14.38 A
1.75 A apart
Current at max power
15.42 A
13.78 A
1.64 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient
-0.290 %/°C
-0.260 %/°C
+0.030 %/°C for AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw
Mechanical
Dimensions
2382x1134x30 mm
1757x1134x30 mm
2382x1134x30 mm vs 1757x1134x30 mm
Module area
2.701 m²
1.992 m²
0.709 m² apart
Weight
33.1 kg
21.5 kg
-11.6 kg for AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw
Weight per kWp
53.4 kg/kWp
44.8 kg/kWp
-8.6 kg/kWp for AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty
12 yrs
25 yrs
+13 yrs for AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw
Performance warranty
30 yrs
30 yrs
Same
Annual degradation
0.40 %/yr
0.35 %/yr
-0.05 %/yr for AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw
Technology
Cell technology
TOPCon
Back Contact
TOPCon vs Back Contact
Cell type
Monocrystalline
Monocrystalline
Same
Cell count
132
108
24 cells apart
Bifacial
Yes
No
Yes vs No
04
14,005 panels
Against the whole database
Efficiency
#1,919
vs
#219
AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw leads by 1,700 places
Power density
#2,191
vs
#230
AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw leads by 1,961 places
Heat behaviour
#2,165
vs
#511
AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw leads by 1,654 places
Weight
#7,289
vs
#535
AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw leads by 6,754 places
Warranty
#21
vs
#21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#2,537
vs
#3,227
JAM66D45-620/LB leads by 690 places
05
Open the full database
More useful comparisons
Same series, other bin
JA Solar JAM66D45-620/LB vs JA Solar JAM66D45-630/LB
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
JA Solar JAM66D45-620/LB vs JA Solar JAM66D45-625/LB
The same specification on paper
Same series, other bin
JA Solar JAM66D45-620/LB vs JA Solar JAM66D45-615/LB
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
JA Solar JAM66D45-620/LB vs JA Solar JAM66D45-610/LB
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
JA Solar JAM66D45-620/LB vs JA Solar JAM66D45-605/LB
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
JA Solar JAM66D45-620/LB vs JA Solar JAM72D30-580/LB/1500V
14 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06
Written summary
Checking cache...
07
Questions about this pairing
Which panel is better: JA Solar JAM66D45-620/LB or AIKO AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw?
According to our database: AIKO AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw has higher module efficiency (24.10% vs 23.00%); AIKO AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw 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 JA Solar JAM66D45-620/LB and AIKO AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw?
JA Solar JAM66D45-620/LB has a module efficiency of 23.00%, while AIKO AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw is 24.10%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does JA Solar JAM66D45-620/LB use vs AIKO AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw?
JA Solar JAM66D45-620/LB uses TOPCon cells; AIKO AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw uses Back Contact. 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 JA Solar JAM66D45-620/LB and AIKO AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw?
JA Solar JAM66D45-620/LB has a 30 years power warranty; AIKO AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw 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 JA Solar JAM66D45-620/LB and AIKO AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw bifacial panels?
JA Solar JAM66D45-620/LB is bifacial (captures light from both faces); AIKO AIKO-A480-MAH54Mw is monofacial. Bifacial panels work best on ground mounts or raised structures with a light-coloured surface underneath.
Shop prices: See 391 JA Solar offers · See 171 AIKO 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.

