Mission Solar MSE400HT0B vs Mission Solar MST12670HP3G
VS
The verdict
MST12670HP3G leads on the differences that matter
The largest is module efficiency: 1.10 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 differencesHow alike are they
3
of 18 comparable
parameters are identical
parameters are identical
identical
differs
not published
01
15 of 18 parameters
What actually differs
Parameter
MSE400HT0B
MST12670HP3G
Difference
Module efficiency
20.50 %
21.60 %
1.10 pp more efficient
Rated power
400 Wp
670 Wp
270 W more power
Performance warranty
25 yrs
30 yrs
5 yrs longer
Power density
204.5 Wp/m²
215.7 Wp/m²
11.1 Wp/m² higher
Weight
19.0 kg
38.7 kg
19.7 kg lighter
Weight per kWp
47.5 kg/kWp
57.8 kg/kWp
10.3 kg/kWp lighter
Annual degradation
0.55 %/yr
0.45 %/yr
0.10 %/yr slower
Open-circuit voltage
37.09 V
46.30 V
9.21 V apart
Short-circuit current
13.75 A
18.55 A
4.80 A apart
Module area
1.956 m²
3.106 m²
1.151 m² apart
Voltage at max power
30.96 V
38.50 V
7.54 V apart
Current at max power
12.92 A
17.43 A
4.51 A apart
Cell count
108
132
24 cells apart
Bifacial
No
Yes
No vs Yes
Dimensions
1723x1135x35 mm
2384x1303x35 mm
1723x1135x35 mm vs 2384x1303x35 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
MSE400HT0B
12,964 kWh
MST12670HP3G
22,064 kWh
Lifetime gap
9,100 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario
MSE400HT0B
MST12670HP3G
Standard test conditions
25 °C
100.0% of rated power
400 W
670 W
Cool, bright day
40 °C
94.9% of rated power
379 W
636 W
Typical summer roof
55 °C
89.7% of rated power
359 W
602 W
Hot roof
70 °C
84.6% of rated power
338 W
567 W
03
Full specification
Parameter
MSE400HT0B
MST12670HP3G
Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power
400 Wp
670 Wp
+270 W for MST12670HP3G
Module efficiency
20.50 %
21.60 %
+1.10 pp for MST12670HP3G
Power density
204.5 Wp/m²
215.7 Wp/m²
+11.1 Wp/m² for MST12670HP3G
Open-circuit voltage
37.09 V
46.30 V
9.21 V apart
Voltage at max power
30.96 V
38.50 V
7.54 V apart
Short-circuit current
13.75 A
18.55 A
4.80 A apart
Current at max power
12.92 A
17.43 A
4.51 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient
-0.343 %/°C
-0.340 %/°C
Effectively the same
Mechanical
Dimensions
1723x1135x35 mm
2384x1303x35 mm
1723x1135x35 mm vs 2384x1303x35 mm
Module area
1.956 m²
3.106 m²
1.151 m² apart
Weight
19.0 kg
38.7 kg
-19.7 kg for MSE400HT0B
Weight per kWp
47.5 kg/kWp
57.8 kg/kWp
-10.3 kg/kWp for MSE400HT0B
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty
25 yrs
-
Not published by Mission Solar
Performance warranty
25 yrs
30 yrs
+5 yrs for MST12670HP3G
Annual degradation
0.55 %/yr
0.45 %/yr
-0.10 %/yr for MST12670HP3G
Technology
Cell technology
PERC
PERC
Same
Cell type
Monocrystalline
Monocrystalline
Same
Cell count
108
132
24 cells apart
Bifacial
No
Yes
No vs Yes
04
14,129 panels
Against the whole database
Efficiency
#11,389
vs
#7,716
MST12670HP3G leads by 3,673 places
Power density
#11,595
vs
#7,708
MST12670HP3G leads by 3,887 places
Heat behaviour
#10,418
vs
#8,846
MST12670HP3G leads by 1,572 places
Weight
#1,726
vs
#11,486
MSE400HT0B leads by 9,760 places
Warranty
#9,912
vs
#21
MST12670HP3G leads by 9,891 places
Overall
#10,705
vs
#4,941
MST12670HP3G leads by 5,764 places
05
Open the full database
More useful comparisons
Same series, other bin
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MSE400HT0B vs Mission Solar MSE410HT0B
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MSE400HT0B vs Mission Solar MSE405HT0B
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MST12670HP3G vs Mission Solar MST12665HP3G
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MST12670HP3G vs Mission Solar MST12660HP3G
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same manufacturer
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MSE400HT0B vs Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G
17 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same manufacturer
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MSE400HT0B vs Mission Solar MST12R615HN3G
17 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06
Written summary
Checking cache...
07
Questions about this pairing
Which panel is better: Mission Solar MSE400HT0B or Mission Solar MST12670HP3G?
According to our database: Mission Solar MST12670HP3G has higher module efficiency (21.60% vs 20.50%); Mission Solar MST12670HP3G tolerates heat better (temp coeff -0.340%/°C vs -0.343%/°C). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of Mission Solar MSE400HT0B and Mission Solar MST12670HP3G?
Mission Solar MSE400HT0B has a module efficiency of 20.50%, while Mission Solar MST12670HP3G is 21.60%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Mission Solar MSE400HT0B use vs Mission Solar MST12670HP3G?
Mission Solar MSE400HT0B uses PERC cells; Mission Solar MST12670HP3G uses PERC. 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 Mission Solar MSE400HT0B and Mission Solar MST12670HP3G?
Mission Solar MSE400HT0B has a 25 years power warranty; Mission Solar MST12670HP3G 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 Mission Solar MSE400HT0B and Mission Solar MST12670HP3G bifacial panels?
Mission Solar MST12670HP3G is bifacial (captures light from both faces); Mission Solar MSE400HT0B is monofacial. Bifacial panels work best on ground mounts or raised structures with a light-coloured surface underneath.
Shop prices: See 4 Mission 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.
