Mission Solar MST12R615HN3G vs Mission Solar MST12665HP3G
VS
The verdict
MST12R615HN3G leads on the differences that matter
The largest is module efficiency: 1.40 pp more efficient. 4 of 18 comparable parameters are identical, with 1 more left out because at least one datasheet does not publish it.
See all 14 differencesHow alike are they
4
of 18 comparable
parameters are identical
parameters are identical
identical
differs
not published
01
14 of 18 parameters
What actually differs
Parameter
MST12R615HN3G
MST12665HP3G
Difference
Module efficiency
22.80 %
21.40 %
1.40 pp more efficient
Temperature coefficient
-0.290 %/°C
-0.340 %/°C
0.050 %/°C better in heat
Rated power
615 Wp
665 Wp
50 W more power
Power density
227.7 Wp/m²
214.1 Wp/m²
13.6 Wp/m² higher
Weight
33.0 kg
38.7 kg
5.7 kg lighter
Short-circuit current
16.20 A
18.50 A
2.30 A apart
Module area
2.701 m²
3.106 m²
0.405 m² apart
Weight per kWp
53.7 kg/kWp
58.2 kg/kWp
4.5 kg/kWp lighter
Cell technology
N-type
PERC
N-type vs PERC
Open-circuit voltage
48.29 V
46.10 V
2.19 V apart
Current at max power
15.39 A
17.39 A
2.00 A apart
Annual degradation
0.40 %/yr
0.45 %/yr
0.05 %/yr slower
Dimensions
2382x1134x30 mm
2384x1303x35 mm
2382x1134x30 mm vs 2384x1303x35 mm
Voltage at max power
39.97 V
38.30 V
1.67 V apart
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
MST12R615HN3G
20,634 kWh
MST12665HP3G
21,899 kWh
Lifetime gap
1,265 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario
MST12R615HN3G
MST12665HP3G
Standard test conditions
25 °C
100.0% of rated power
615 W
665 W
Cool, bright day
40 °C
94.9% of rated power
588 W
631 W
Typical summer roof
55 °C
89.8% of rated power
561 W
597 W
Hot roof
70 °C
84.7% of rated power
535 W
563 W
03
Full specification
Parameter
MST12R615HN3G
MST12665HP3G
Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power
615 Wp
665 Wp
+50 W for MST12665HP3G
Module efficiency
22.80 %
21.40 %
+1.40 pp for MST12R615HN3G
Power density
227.7 Wp/m²
214.1 Wp/m²
+13.6 Wp/m² for MST12R615HN3G
Open-circuit voltage
48.29 V
46.10 V
2.19 V apart
Voltage at max power
39.97 V
38.30 V
1.67 V apart
Short-circuit current
16.20 A
18.50 A
2.30 A apart
Current at max power
15.39 A
17.39 A
2.00 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient
-0.290 %/°C
-0.340 %/°C
+0.050 %/°C for MST12R615HN3G
Mechanical
Dimensions
2382x1134x30 mm
2384x1303x35 mm
2382x1134x30 mm vs 2384x1303x35 mm
Module area
2.701 m²
3.106 m²
0.405 m² apart
Weight
33.0 kg
38.7 kg
-5.7 kg for MST12R615HN3G
Weight per kWp
53.7 kg/kWp
58.2 kg/kWp
-4.5 kg/kWp for MST12R615HN3G
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty
-
-
Neither datasheet publishes this
Performance warranty
30 yrs
30 yrs
Same
Annual degradation
0.40 %/yr
0.45 %/yr
-0.05 %/yr for MST12R615HN3G
Technology
Cell technology
N-type
PERC
N-type vs PERC
Cell type
Monocrystalline
Monocrystalline
Same
Cell count
132
132
Same
Bifacial
Yes
Yes
Same
04
14,129 panels
Against the whole database
Efficiency
#2,769
vs
#8,388
MST12R615HN3G leads by 5,619 places
Power density
#3,132
vs
#8,315
MST12R615HN3G leads by 5,183 places
Heat behaviour
#2,220
vs
#8,846
MST12R615HN3G leads by 6,626 places
Weight
#7,730
vs
#11,709
MST12R615HN3G leads by 3,979 places
Warranty
#21
vs
#21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#5,428
vs
#5,332
MST12665HP3G leads by 96 places
05
Open the full database
More useful comparisons
Same series, other bin
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MST12R615HN3G vs Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MST12R615HN3G vs Mission Solar MST12R610HN3G
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MST12665HP3G vs Mission Solar MST12670HP3G
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MST12665HP3G vs Mission Solar MST12660HP3G
One difference: module efficiency
Same manufacturer
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MST12R615HN3G vs Mission Solar MSH10-595HN4G
9 differences, the largest is rated power
Same manufacturer
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MST12R615HN3G vs Mission Solar MSI10-590HN4G
9 differences, the largest is rated power
06
Written summary
Checking cache...
07
Questions about this pairing
Which panel is better: Mission Solar MST12R615HN3G or Mission Solar MST12665HP3G?
According to our database: Mission Solar MST12R615HN3G has higher module efficiency (22.80% vs 21.40%); Mission Solar MST12R615HN3G 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 MST12R615HN3G and Mission Solar MST12665HP3G?
Mission Solar MST12R615HN3G has a module efficiency of 22.80%, while Mission Solar MST12665HP3G is 21.40%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Mission Solar MST12R615HN3G use vs Mission Solar MST12665HP3G?
Mission Solar MST12R615HN3G uses N-type cells; Mission Solar MST12665HP3G 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 MST12R615HN3G and Mission Solar MST12665HP3G?
Mission Solar MST12R615HN3G has a 30 years power warranty; Mission Solar MST12665HP3G 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 MST12R615HN3G and Mission Solar MST12665HP3G bifacial panels?
Both Mission Solar MST12R615HN3G and Mission Solar MST12665HP3G 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.