Skip to main content
MSI10-585HN4G vs MST12R620HN3G 7 of 18 identical Swap Change panels

Mission Solar MSI10-585HN4G vs Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G

Mission Solar
MSI10-585HN4G
585 Wp 22.67 % TOPCon Bifacial
VS
Mission Solar
MST12R620HN3G
620 Wp 23.00 % N-type Bifacial
The verdict

MST12R620HN3G leads on the differences that matter

The largest is rated power: 35 W more power. 7 of 18 comparable parameters are identical, with 1 more left out because at least one datasheet does not publish it.

See all 11 differences
How alike are they
7 of 18 comparable
parameters are identical
identical differs not published
01

What actually differs

11 of 18 parameters
Parameter MSI10-585HN4G MST12R620HN3G Difference
Rated power 585 Wp 620 Wp 35 W more power
Module efficiency 22.67 % 23.00 % 0.33 pp more efficient
Open-circuit voltage 52.70 V 48.50 V 4.20 V apart
Short-circuit current 14.05 A 16.26 A 2.21 A apart
Module area 2.583 m² 2.701 m² 0.118 m² apart
Cell technology TOPCon N-type TOPCon vs N-type
Power density 226.5 Wp/m² 229.5 Wp/m² 3.1 Wp/m² higher
Current at max power 13.30 A 15.41 A 2.11 A apart
Cell count 144 132 12 cells apart
Voltage at max power 44.04 V 40.24 V 3.80 V apart
Dimensions 2278x1134x30 mm 2382x1134x30 mm 2278x1134x30 mm vs 2382x1134x30 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
MSI10-585HN4G
19,628 kWh
MST12R620HN3G
20,802 kWh
Lifetime gap
1,174 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario MSI10-585HN4G MST12R620HN3G
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 585 W 620 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.5% of rated power 559 W 593 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.1% of rated power 533 W 566 W
Hot roof 70 °C 86.6% of rated power 507 W 539 W
03

Full specification

Parameter MSI10-585HN4G MST12R620HN3G Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 585 Wp 620 Wp +35 W for MST12R620HN3G
Module efficiency 22.67 % 23.00 % +0.33 pp for MST12R620HN3G
Power density 226.5 Wp/m² 229.5 Wp/m² +3.1 Wp/m² for MST12R620HN3G
Open-circuit voltage 52.70 V 48.50 V 4.20 V apart
Voltage at max power 44.04 V 40.24 V 3.80 V apart
Short-circuit current 14.05 A 16.26 A 2.21 A apart
Current at max power 13.30 A 15.41 A 2.11 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.298 %/°C -0.290 %/°C Effectively the same
Mechanical
Dimensions 2278x1134x30 mm 2382x1134x30 mm 2278x1134x30 mm vs 2382x1134x30 mm
Module area 2.583 m² 2.701 m² 0.118 m² apart
Weight 32.2 kg 33.0 kg Effectively the same
Weight per kWp 55.0 kg/kWp 53.2 kg/kWp Effectively the same
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty 12 yrs - Not published by Mission Solar
Performance warranty 30 yrs 30 yrs Same
Annual degradation 0.40 %/yr 0.40 %/yr Same
Technology
Cell technology TOPCon N-type TOPCon vs N-type
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 144 132 12 cells apart
Bifacial Yes Yes Same
04

Against the whole database

14,129 panels
Efficiency
#3,563 vs #1,970
MST12R620HN3G leads by 1,593 places
Power density
#3,557 vs #2,243
MST12R620HN3G leads by 1,314 places
Heat behaviour
#6,149 vs #2,220
MST12R620HN3G leads by 3,929 places
Weight
#9,512 vs #7,129
MST12R620HN3G leads by 2,383 places
Warranty
#21 vs #21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#4,131 vs #5,028
MSI10-585HN4G leads by 897 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MSI10-585HN4G vs Mission Solar MSI10-590HN4G
The same specification on paper
Same series, other bin
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MSI10-585HN4G vs Mission Solar MSI10-580HN4G
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G vs Mission Solar MST12R615HN3G
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G vs Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same manufacturer
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MSI10-585HN4G vs Mission Solar MST12670HP3G
15 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same manufacturer
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MSI10-585HN4G vs Mission Solar MST12665HP3G
15 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06

Written summary

Checking cache...
07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: Mission Solar MSI10-585HN4G or Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G?
According to our database: Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G has higher module efficiency (23.00% vs 22.67%); Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G tolerates heat better (temp coeff -0.290%/°C vs -0.298%/°C). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of Mission Solar MSI10-585HN4G and Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G?
Mission Solar MSI10-585HN4G has a module efficiency of 22.67%, while Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G is 23.00%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Mission Solar MSI10-585HN4G use vs Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G?
Mission Solar MSI10-585HN4G uses TOPCon cells; Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G uses N-type. 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 MSI10-585HN4G and Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G?
Mission Solar MSI10-585HN4G has a 30 years power warranty; Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G 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 MSI10-585HN4G and Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G bifacial panels?
Both Mission Solar MSI10-585HN4G and Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G 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 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.