Skip to main content
HD132N-715W vs HD108N-415 5 of 19 identical Swap Change panels

Jolywood JW-HD132N-715W vs Jolywood JW-HD108N-415

Jolywood JW-HD132N-715W
Jolywood
JW-HD132N-715W
715 Wp 23.00 % TOPCon Bifacial
VS
Jolywood JW-HD108N-415
Jolywood
JW-HD108N-415
415 Wp 21.25 % TOPCon Bifacial
The verdict

HD132N-715W leads on the differences that matter

The largest is module efficiency: 1.75 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 HD132N-715W HD108N-415 Difference
Module efficiency 23.00 % 21.25 % 1.75 pp more efficient
Rated power 715 Wp 415 Wp 300 W more power
Power density 230.2 Wp/m² 212.5 Wp/m² 17.7 Wp/m² higher
Weight 38.1 kg 24.5 kg 13.6 kg lighter
Product warranty 12 yrs 25 yrs 13 yrs longer
Temperature coefficient -0.280 %/°C -0.300 %/°C 0.020 %/°C better in heat
Weight per kWp 53.3 kg/kWp 59.0 kg/kWp 5.7 kg/kWp lighter
Open-circuit voltage 48.14 V 37.70 V 10.44 V apart
Short-circuit current 18.28 A 13.91 A 4.37 A apart
Module area 3.106 m² 1.953 m² 1.154 m² apart
Voltage at max power 41.32 V 31.70 V 9.62 V apart
Current at max power 17.30 A 13.10 A 4.20 A apart
Cell count 132 108 24 cells apart
Dimensions 2384x1303x33 mm 1722x1134x30 mm 2384x1303x33 mm vs 1722x1134x30 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
HD132N-715W
23,990 kWh
HD108N-415
13,924 kWh
Lifetime gap
10,066 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario HD132N-715W HD108N-415
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 715 W 415 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.5% of rated power 685 W 396 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.0% of rated power 655 W 378 W
Hot roof 70 °C 86.5% of rated power 625 W 359 W
03

Full specification

Parameter HD132N-715W HD108N-415 Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 715 Wp 415 Wp +300 W for HD132N-715W
Module efficiency 23.00 % 21.25 % +1.75 pp for HD132N-715W
Power density 230.2 Wp/m² 212.5 Wp/m² +17.7 Wp/m² for HD132N-715W
Open-circuit voltage 48.14 V 37.70 V 10.44 V apart
Voltage at max power 41.32 V 31.70 V 9.62 V apart
Short-circuit current 18.28 A 13.91 A 4.37 A apart
Current at max power 17.30 A 13.10 A 4.20 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.280 %/°C -0.300 %/°C +0.020 %/°C for HD132N-715W
Mechanical
Dimensions 2384x1303x33 mm 1722x1134x30 mm 2384x1303x33 mm vs 1722x1134x30 mm
Module area 3.106 m² 1.953 m² 1.154 m² apart
Weight 38.1 kg 24.5 kg -13.6 kg for HD108N-415
Weight per kWp 53.3 kg/kWp 59.0 kg/kWp -5.7 kg/kWp for HD132N-715W
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty 12 yrs 25 yrs +13 yrs for HD108N-415
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 132 108 24 cells apart
Bifacial Yes Yes Same
04

Against the whole database

14,129 panels
Efficiency
#1,970 vs #8,973
HD132N-715W leads by 7,003 places
Power density
#2,070 vs #8,858
HD132N-715W leads by 6,788 places
Heat behaviour
#1,347 vs #6,152
HD132N-715W leads by 4,805 places
Weight
#7,237 vs #12,081
HD132N-715W leads by 4,844 places
Warranty
#21 vs #21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#691 vs #9,171
HD132N-715W leads by 8,480 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
Jolywood
Jolywood JW-HD132N-715W vs Jolywood JW-HD132N-715
The same specification on paper
Same series, other bin
Jolywood
Jolywood JW-HD132N-715W vs Jolywood JW-HD132N-710W
The same specification on paper
Same series, other bin
Jolywood
Jolywood JW-HD132N-715W vs Jolywood JW-HD132N-710
The same specification on paper
Same series, other bin
Jolywood
Jolywood JW-HD132N-715W vs Jolywood JW-HD132N-705W
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Jolywood
Jolywood JW-HD132N-715W vs Jolywood JW-HD132N-705
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Jolywood
Jolywood JW-HD132N-715W vs Jolywood JW-HD132N-700
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06

Written summary

Checking cache...
07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: Jolywood JW-HD132N-715W or Jolywood JW-HD108N-415?
According to our database: Jolywood JW-HD132N-715 W has higher module efficiency (23.00% vs 21.25%); Jolywood JW-HD132N-715 W tolerates heat better (temp coeff -0.280%/°C vs -0.300%/°C). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of Jolywood JW-HD132N-715W and Jolywood JW-HD108N-415?
Jolywood JW-HD132N-715 W has a module efficiency of 23.00%, while Jolywood JW-HD108N-415 is 21.25%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Jolywood JW-HD132N-715W use vs Jolywood JW-HD108N-415?
Jolywood JW-HD132N-715 W uses TOPCon cells; Jolywood JW-HD108N-415 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-HD132N-715W and Jolywood JW-HD108N-415?
Jolywood JW-HD132N-715 W has a 30 years power warranty; Jolywood JW-HD108N-415 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-HD132N-715W and Jolywood JW-HD108N-415 bifacial panels?
Both Jolywood JW-HD132N-715 W and Jolywood JW-HD108N-415 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 24 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.