Skip to main content
HD108N-R2-525 vs HT108N-R3 460W 8 of 19 identical Swap Change panels

Jolywood JW-HD108N-R2-525 vs Jolywood JW-HT108N-R3 460W

Jolywood
JW-HD108N-R2-525
525 Wp 23.60 % TOPCon Bifacial
VS
Jolywood JW-HT108N-R3 460W
Jolywood
JW-HT108N-R3 460W
460 Wp 23.00 % TOPCon
The verdict

HD108N-R2-525 leads on the differences that matter

The largest is rated power: 65 W more power. 8 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.

See all 11 differences
How alike are they
8 of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
identical differs
01

What actually differs

11 of 19 parameters
Parameter HD108N-R2-525 HT108N-R3 460W Difference
Rated power 525 Wp 460 Wp 65 W more power
Module efficiency 23.60 % 23.00 % 0.60 pp more efficient
Weight 27.3 kg 21.7 kg 5.6 kg lighter
Product warranty 25 yrs 12 yrs 13 yrs longer
Module area 2.223 m² 1.998 m² 0.225 m² apart
Power density 236.2 Wp/m² 230.2 Wp/m² 6.0 Wp/m² higher
Weight per kWp 52.0 kg/kWp 47.2 kg/kWp 4.8 kg/kWp lighter
Short-circuit current 16.08 A 14.35 A 1.73 A apart
Current at max power 15.26 A 13.59 A 1.67 A apart
Bifacial Yes No Yes vs No
Dimensions 1960x1134x30 mm 1762x1134x30 mm 1960x1134x30 mm vs 1762x1134x30 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
Same temp coeff. for both panels (-0.280 %/°C), so a warmer roof scales both curves by the same factor: the totals fall together and neither panel gains on the other.
HD108N-R2-525
17,615 kWh
HT108N-R3 460W
15,434 kWh
Lifetime gap
2,181 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario HD108N-R2-525 HT108N-R3 460W
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 525 W 460 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.8% of rated power 503 W 441 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.6% of rated power 481 W 421 W
Hot roof 70 °C 87.4% of rated power 459 W 402 W
03

Full specification

Parameter HD108N-R2-525 HT108N-R3 460W Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 525 Wp 460 Wp +65 W for HD108N-R2-525
Module efficiency 23.60 % 23.00 % +0.60 pp for HD108N-R2-525
Power density 236.2 Wp/m² 230.2 Wp/m² +6.0 Wp/m² for HD108N-R2-525
Open-circuit voltage 40.03 V 39.37 V Effectively the same
Voltage at max power 34.40 V 33.85 V Effectively the same
Short-circuit current 16.08 A 14.35 A 1.73 A apart
Current at max power 15.26 A 13.59 A 1.67 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.280 %/°C -0.280 %/°C Same
Mechanical
Dimensions 1960x1134x30 mm 1762x1134x30 mm 1960x1134x30 mm vs 1762x1134x30 mm
Module area 2.223 m² 1.998 m² 0.225 m² apart
Weight 27.3 kg 21.7 kg -5.6 kg for HT108N-R3 460W
Weight per kWp 52.0 kg/kWp 47.2 kg/kWp -4.8 kg/kWp for HT108N-R3 460W
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty 25 yrs 12 yrs +13 yrs for HD108N-R2-525
Performance warranty 30 yrs 30 yrs Same
Annual degradation 0.40 %/yr 0.40 %/yr Same
Technology
Cell technology TOPCon TOPCon Same
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 108 108 Same
Bifacial Yes No Yes vs No
04

Against the whole database

14,129 panels
Efficiency
#659 vs #1,970
HD108N-R2-525 leads by 1,311 places
Power density
#646 vs #1,927
HD108N-R2-525 leads by 1,281 places
Heat behaviour
#1,347 vs #1,347
Tied - the same position in the database
Weight
#5,449 vs #1,533
HT108N-R3 460W leads by 3,916 places
Warranty
#21 vs #21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#2,472 vs #8,097
HD108N-R2-525 leads by 5,625 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
Jolywood
Jolywood JW-HD108N-R2-525 vs Jolywood JW-HD108N-R2-520
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Jolywood
Jolywood JW-HD108N-R2-525 vs Jolywood JW-HD108N-R2-515
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Jolywood
Jolywood JW-HD108N-R2-525 vs Jolywood JW-HD108N-R2-510
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Jolywood
Jolywood JW-HD108N-R2-525 vs Jolywood JW-HD108N-R2-505
4 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Jolywood
Jolywood JW-HD108N-R2-525 vs Jolywood JW-HD108N-R2-500
5 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Jolywood
Jolywood JW-HT108N-R3 460W vs Jolywood JW-HD108N-R3-460
3 differences, the largest is weight per kwp
06

Written summary

Checking cache...
07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: Jolywood JW-HD108N-R2-525 or Jolywood JW-HT108N-R3 460W?
According to our database: Jolywood JW-HD108N-R2-525 has higher module efficiency (23.60% vs 23.00%). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of Jolywood JW-HD108N-R2-525 and Jolywood JW-HT108N-R3 460W?
Jolywood JW-HD108N-R2-525 has a module efficiency of 23.60%, while Jolywood JW-HT108N-R3 460 W is 23.00%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Jolywood JW-HD108N-R2-525 use vs Jolywood JW-HT108N-R3 460W?
Jolywood JW-HD108N-R2-525 uses TOPCon cells; Jolywood JW-HT108N-R3 460 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 Jolywood JW-HD108N-R2-525 and Jolywood JW-HT108N-R3 460W?
Jolywood JW-HD108N-R2-525 has a 30 years power warranty; Jolywood JW-HT108N-R3 460 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 Jolywood JW-HD108N-R2-525 and Jolywood JW-HT108N-R3 460W bifacial panels?
Jolywood JW-HD108N-R2-525 is bifacial (captures light from both faces); Jolywood JW-HT108N-R3 460 W is monofacial. Bifacial panels work best on ground mounts or raised structures with a light-coloured surface underneath.

Shop prices: See 28 Jolywood 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.