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

Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G vs Mission Solar MSI10-590HN4G

Mission Solar
MST12R610HN3G
610 Wp 22.60 % N-type Bifacial
VS
Mission Solar
MSI10-590HN4G
590 Wp 22.86 % TOPCon 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 MST12R610HN3G MSI10-590HN4G Difference
Rated power 610 Wp 590 Wp 20 W more power
Open-circuit voltage 48.09 V 52.90 V 4.81 V apart
Short-circuit current 16.14 A 14.11 A 2.03 A apart
Module area 2.701 m² 2.583 m² 0.118 m² apart
Module efficiency 22.60 % 22.86 % 0.26 pp more efficient
Cell technology N-type TOPCon N-type vs TOPCon
Voltage at max power 39.79 V 44.23 V 4.44 V apart
Cell count 132 144 12 cells apart
Current at max power 15.33 A 13.36 A 1.97 A apart
Dimensions 2382x1134x30 mm 2278x1134x30 mm 2382x1134x30 mm vs 2278x1134x30 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
MST12R610HN3G
20,467 kWh
MSI10-590HN4G
19,796 kWh
Lifetime gap
671 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario MST12R610HN3G MSI10-590HN4G
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 610 W 590 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.5% of rated power 583 W 564 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.1% of rated power 557 W 537 W
Hot roof 70 °C 86.6% of rated power 530 W 511 W
03

Full specification

Parameter MST12R610HN3G MSI10-590HN4G Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 610 Wp 590 Wp +20 W for MST12R610HN3G
Module efficiency 22.60 % 22.86 % +0.26 pp for MSI10-590HN4G
Power density 225.8 Wp/m² 228.4 Wp/m² Effectively the same
Open-circuit voltage 48.09 V 52.90 V 4.81 V apart
Voltage at max power 39.79 V 44.23 V 4.44 V apart
Short-circuit current 16.14 A 14.11 A 2.03 A apart
Current at max power 15.33 A 13.36 A 1.97 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.298 %/°C Effectively the same
Mechanical
Dimensions 2382x1134x30 mm 2278x1134x30 mm 2382x1134x30 mm vs 2278x1134x30 mm
Module area 2.701 m² 2.583 m² 0.118 m² apart
Weight 33.0 kg 32.2 kg Effectively the same
Weight per kWp 54.1 kg/kWp 54.6 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 N-type TOPCon N-type vs TOPCon
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 132 144 12 cells apart
Bifacial Yes Yes Same
04

Against the whole database

14,129 panels
Efficiency
#3,716 vs #2,591
MSI10-590HN4G leads by 1,125 places
Power density
#3,788 vs #2,653
MSI10-590HN4G leads by 1,135 places
Heat behaviour
#2,220 vs #6,149
MST12R610HN3G leads by 3,929 places
Weight
#8,404 vs #9,021
MST12R610HN3G leads by 617 places
Warranty
#21 vs #21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#5,818 vs #3,768
MSI10-590HN4G leads by 2,050 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
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 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 manufacturer
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G vs Mission Solar MST12670HP3G
14 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same manufacturer
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G vs Mission Solar MST12665HP3G
14 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06

Written summary

Checking cache...
07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G or Mission Solar MSI10-590HN4G?
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 MST12R610HN3G and Mission Solar MSI10-590HN4G?
Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G has a module efficiency of 22.60%, while Mission Solar MSI10-590HN4G is 22.86%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G use vs Mission Solar MSI10-590HN4G?
Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G uses N-type cells; Mission Solar MSI10-590HN4G 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 Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G and Mission Solar MSI10-590HN4G?
Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G has a 30 years power warranty; Mission Solar MSI10-590HN4G 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 MST12R610HN3G and Mission Solar MSI10-590HN4G bifacial panels?
Both Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G and Mission Solar MSI10-590HN4G 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.