Mission Solar MST12660HP3G vs Mission Solar MSX10-445HN0B
VS
The verdict
MSX10-445HN0B leads on the differences that matter
The largest is module efficiency: 1.60 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
MST12660HP3G
MSX10-445HN0B
Difference
Module efficiency
21.20 %
22.80 %
1.60 pp more efficient
Temperature coefficient
-0.340 %/°C
-0.290 %/°C
0.050 %/°C better in heat
Rated power
660 Wp
445 Wp
215 W more power
Power density
212.5 Wp/m²
227.9 Wp/m²
15.4 Wp/m² higher
Weight
38.7 kg
21.3 kg
17.4 kg lighter
Weight per kWp
58.6 kg/kWp
47.9 kg/kWp
10.8 kg/kWp lighter
Open-circuit voltage
45.90 V
39.69 V
6.21 V apart
Short-circuit current
18.45 A
14.02 A
4.43 A apart
Module area
3.106 m²
1.953 m²
1.154 m² apart
Cell technology
PERC
N-type
PERC vs N-type
Voltage at max power
38.10 V
33.44 V
4.66 V apart
Current at max power
17.35 A
13.31 A
4.04 A apart
Cell count
132
108
24 cells apart
Bifacial
Yes
No
Yes vs No
Dimensions
2384x1303x35 mm
1722x1134x35 mm
2384x1303x35 mm vs 1722x1134x35 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
MST12660HP3G
21,734 kWh
MSX10-445HN0B
14,814 kWh
Lifetime gap
6,920 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario
MST12660HP3G
MSX10-445HN0B
Standard test conditions
25 °C
100.0% of rated power
660 W
445 W
Cool, bright day
40 °C
94.9% of rated power
626 W
426 W
Typical summer roof
55 °C
89.8% of rated power
593 W
406 W
Hot roof
70 °C
84.7% of rated power
559 W
387 W
03
Full specification
Parameter
MST12660HP3G
MSX10-445HN0B
Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power
660 Wp
445 Wp
+215 W for MST12660HP3G
Module efficiency
21.20 %
22.80 %
+1.60 pp for MSX10-445HN0B
Power density
212.5 Wp/m²
227.9 Wp/m²
+15.4 Wp/m² for MSX10-445HN0B
Open-circuit voltage
45.90 V
39.69 V
6.21 V apart
Voltage at max power
38.10 V
33.44 V
4.66 V apart
Short-circuit current
18.45 A
14.02 A
4.43 A apart
Current at max power
17.35 A
13.31 A
4.04 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient
-0.340 %/°C
-0.290 %/°C
+0.050 %/°C for MSX10-445HN0B
Mechanical
Dimensions
2384x1303x35 mm
1722x1134x35 mm
2384x1303x35 mm vs 1722x1134x35 mm
Module area
3.106 m²
1.953 m²
1.154 m² apart
Weight
38.7 kg
21.3 kg
-17.4 kg for MSX10-445HN0B
Weight per kWp
58.6 kg/kWp
47.9 kg/kWp
-10.8 kg/kWp for MSX10-445HN0B
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty
-
25 yrs
Not published by Mission Solar
Performance warranty
30 yrs
30 yrs
Same
Annual degradation
0.45 %/yr
0.45 %/yr
Same
Technology
Cell technology
PERC
N-type
PERC vs N-type
Cell type
Monocrystalline
Monocrystalline
Same
Cell count
132
108
24 cells apart
Bifacial
Yes
No
Yes vs No
04
14,005 panels
Against the whole database
Efficiency
#9,076
vs
#2,714
MSX10-445HN0B leads by 6,362 places
Power density
#8,959
vs
#2,790
MSX10-445HN0B leads by 6,169 places
Heat behaviour
#8,778
vs
#2,165
MSX10-445HN0B leads by 6,613 places
Weight
#11,817
vs
#1,948
MSX10-445HN0B leads by 9,869 places
Warranty
#21
vs
#21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#5,651
vs
#5,891
MST12660HP3G leads by 240 places
05
Open the full database
More useful comparisons
Same series, other bin
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MST12660HP3G vs Mission Solar MST12670HP3G
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MST12660HP3G vs Mission Solar MST12665HP3G
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MSX10-445HN0B vs Mission Solar MSX10-440HN0B
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MSX10-445HN0B vs Mission Solar MSX10-435HN0B
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same manufacturer
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MST12660HP3G vs Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G
14 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same manufacturer
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MST12660HP3G vs Mission Solar MST12R615HN3G
14 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06
Written summary
Checking cache...
07
Questions about this pairing
Which panel is better: Mission Solar MST12660HP3G or Mission Solar MSX10-445HN0B?
According to our database: Mission Solar MSX10-445HN0B has higher module efficiency (22.80% vs 21.20%); Mission Solar MSX10-445HN0B tolerates heat better (temp coeff -0.290%/°C vs -0.340%/°C). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of Mission Solar MST12660HP3G and Mission Solar MSX10-445HN0B?
Mission Solar MST12660HP3G has a module efficiency of 21.20%, while Mission Solar MSX10-445HN0B is 22.80%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Mission Solar MST12660HP3G use vs Mission Solar MSX10-445HN0B?
Mission Solar MST12660HP3G uses PERC cells; Mission Solar MSX10-445HN0B 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 MST12660HP3G and Mission Solar MSX10-445HN0B?
Mission Solar MST12660HP3G has a 30 years power warranty; Mission Solar MSX10-445HN0B 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 MST12660HP3G and Mission Solar MSX10-445HN0B bifacial panels?
Mission Solar MST12660HP3G is bifacial (captures light from both faces); Mission Solar MSX10-445HN0B is monofacial. Bifacial panels work best on ground mounts or raised structures with a light-coloured surface underneath.
Shop prices: See 5 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.