Skip to main content
MSI10-590HN4G vs MST12R610HN3G 8 of 18 identical Swap Change panels

Mission Solar MSI10-590HN4G vs Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G

Mission Solar
MSI10-590HN4G
590 Wp 22.86 % TOPCon Bifacial
VS
Mission Solar
MST12R610HN3G
610 Wp 22.60 % N-type Bifacial
The verdict

10 differences, and they point both ways

The largest is rated power: 20 W more power. 8 of 18 comparable parameters are identical, with 1 more left out because at least one datasheet does not publish it.

See all 10 differences
How alike are they
8 of 18 comparable
parameters are identical
identical differs not published
01

What actually differs

10 of 18 parameters
Parameter MSI10-590HN4G MST12R610HN3G Difference
Rated power 590 Wp 610 Wp 20 W more power
Open-circuit voltage 52.90 V 48.09 V 4.81 V apart
Short-circuit current 14.11 A 16.14 A 2.03 A apart
Module area 2.583 m² 2.701 m² 0.118 m² apart
Module efficiency 22.86 % 22.60 % 0.26 pp more efficient
Cell technology TOPCon N-type TOPCon vs N-type
Voltage at max power 44.23 V 39.79 V 4.44 V apart
Cell count 144 132 12 cells apart
Current at max power 13.36 A 15.33 A 1.97 A 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
MSI10-590HN4G
19,796 kWh
MST12R610HN3G
20,467 kWh
Lifetime gap
671 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario MSI10-590HN4G MST12R610HN3G
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 590 W 610 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.5% of rated power 564 W 583 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.1% of rated power 537 W 557 W
Hot roof 70 °C 86.6% of rated power 511 W 530 W
03

Full specification

Parameter MSI10-590HN4G MST12R610HN3G Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 590 Wp 610 Wp +20 W for MST12R610HN3G
Module efficiency 22.86 % 22.60 % +0.26 pp for MSI10-590HN4G
Power density 228.4 Wp/m² 225.8 Wp/m² Effectively the same
Open-circuit voltage 52.90 V 48.09 V 4.81 V apart
Voltage at max power 44.23 V 39.79 V 4.44 V apart
Short-circuit current 14.11 A 16.14 A 2.03 A apart
Current at max power 13.36 A 15.33 A 1.97 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 54.6 kg/kWp 54.1 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
#2,591 vs #3,716
MSI10-590HN4G leads by 1,125 places
Power density
#2,653 vs #3,788
MSI10-590HN4G leads by 1,135 places
Heat behaviour
#6,149 vs #2,220
MST12R610HN3G leads by 3,929 places
Weight
#9,021 vs #8,404
MST12R610HN3G leads by 617 places
Warranty
#21 vs #21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#3,768 vs #5,818
MSI10-590HN4G leads by 2,050 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MSI10-590HN4G vs Mission Solar MSI10-585HN4G
The same specification on paper
Same series, other bin
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MSI10-590HN4G vs Mission Solar MSI10-580HN4G
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G vs Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G vs Mission Solar MST12R615HN3G
One difference: module efficiency
Same manufacturer
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MSI10-590HN4G vs Mission Solar MST12670HP3G
15 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same manufacturer
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MSI10-590HN4G 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 MSI10-590HN4G or Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G?
According to our database: Mission Solar MSI10-590HN4G has higher module efficiency (22.86% vs 22.60%); Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G 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 MSI10-590HN4G and Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G?
Mission Solar MSI10-590HN4G has a module efficiency of 22.86%, while Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G is 22.60%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Mission Solar MSI10-590HN4G use vs Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G?
Mission Solar MSI10-590HN4G uses TOPCon cells; Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G 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 MSI10-590HN4G and Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G?
Mission Solar MSI10-590HN4G has a 30 years power warranty; Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G 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 MSI10-590HN4G and Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G bifacial panels?
Both Mission Solar MSI10-590HN4G and Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G 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.