Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G vs Mission Solar MSE410HT0B
VS
The verdict
MST12R620HN3G leads on the differences that matter
The largest is module efficiency: 2.00 pp more efficient. 1 of 18 comparable parameters are identical, with 1 more left out because at least one datasheet does not publish it.
See all 17 differencesHow alike are they
1
of 18 comparable
parameters are identical
parameters are identical
identical
differs
not published
01
17 of 18 parameters
What actually differs
Parameter
MST12R620HN3G
MSE410HT0B
Difference
Module efficiency
23.00 %
21.00 %
2.00 pp more efficient
Temperature coefficient
-0.290 %/°C
-0.343 %/°C
0.053 %/°C better in heat
Rated power
620 Wp
410 Wp
210 W more power
Power density
229.5 Wp/m²
209.7 Wp/m²
19.9 Wp/m² higher
Performance warranty
30 yrs
25 yrs
5 yrs longer
Annual degradation
0.40 %/yr
0.55 %/yr
0.15 %/yr slower
Weight
33.0 kg
19.0 kg
14.0 kg lighter
Weight per kWp
53.2 kg/kWp
46.3 kg/kWp
6.9 kg/kWp lighter
Open-circuit voltage
48.50 V
37.41 V
11.09 V apart
Short-circuit current
16.26 A
13.90 A
2.36 A apart
Module area
2.701 m²
1.956 m²
0.746 m² apart
Cell technology
N-type
PERC
N-type vs PERC
Voltage at max power
40.24 V
31.38 V
8.86 V apart
Current at max power
15.41 A
13.07 A
2.34 A apart
Cell count
132
108
24 cells apart
Bifacial
Yes
No
Yes vs No
Dimensions
2382x1134x30 mm
1723x1135x35 mm
2382x1134x30 mm vs 1723x1135x35 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
MST12R620HN3G
20,802 kWh
MSE410HT0B
13,288 kWh
Lifetime gap
7,514 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario
MST12R620HN3G
MSE410HT0B
Standard test conditions
25 °C
100.0% of rated power
620 W
410 W
Cool, bright day
40 °C
94.9% of rated power
593 W
389 W
Typical summer roof
55 °C
89.7% of rated power
566 W
368 W
Hot roof
70 °C
84.6% of rated power
539 W
347 W
03
Full specification
Parameter
MST12R620HN3G
MSE410HT0B
Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power
620 Wp
410 Wp
+210 W for MST12R620HN3G
Module efficiency
23.00 %
21.00 %
+2.00 pp for MST12R620HN3G
Power density
229.5 Wp/m²
209.7 Wp/m²
+19.9 Wp/m² for MST12R620HN3G
Open-circuit voltage
48.50 V
37.41 V
11.09 V apart
Voltage at max power
40.24 V
31.38 V
8.86 V apart
Short-circuit current
16.26 A
13.90 A
2.36 A apart
Current at max power
15.41 A
13.07 A
2.34 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient
-0.290 %/°C
-0.343 %/°C
+0.053 %/°C for MST12R620HN3G
Mechanical
Dimensions
2382x1134x30 mm
1723x1135x35 mm
2382x1134x30 mm vs 1723x1135x35 mm
Module area
2.701 m²
1.956 m²
0.746 m² apart
Weight
33.0 kg
19.0 kg
-14.0 kg for MSE410HT0B
Weight per kWp
53.2 kg/kWp
46.3 kg/kWp
-6.9 kg/kWp for MSE410HT0B
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty
-
25 yrs
Not published by Mission Solar
Performance warranty
30 yrs
25 yrs
+5 yrs for MST12R620HN3G
Annual degradation
0.40 %/yr
0.55 %/yr
-0.15 %/yr for MST12R620HN3G
Technology
Cell technology
N-type
PERC
N-type vs PERC
Cell type
Monocrystalline
Monocrystalline
Same
Cell count
132
108
24 cells apart
Bifacial
Yes
No
Yes vs No
04
14,129 panels
Against the whole database
Efficiency
#1,970
vs
#9,828
MST12R620HN3G leads by 7,858 places
Power density
#2,243
vs
#9,994
MST12R620HN3G leads by 7,751 places
Heat behaviour
#2,220
vs
#10,418
MST12R620HN3G leads by 8,198 places
Weight
#7,129
vs
#1,120
MSE410HT0B leads by 6,009 places
Warranty
#21
vs
#9,912
MST12R620HN3G leads by 9,891 places
Overall
#5,028
vs
#10,147
MST12R620HN3G leads by 5,119 places
05
Open the full database
More useful comparisons
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 series, other bin
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MSE410HT0B vs Mission Solar MSE405HT0B
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MSE410HT0B vs Mission Solar MSE400HT0B
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same manufacturer
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G vs Mission Solar MST12670HP3G
14 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same manufacturer
Mission Solar
Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G 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 MST12R620HN3G or Mission Solar MSE410HT0B?
According to our database: Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G has higher module efficiency (23.00% vs 21.00%); Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G tolerates heat better (temp coeff -0.290%/°C vs -0.343%/°C). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G and Mission Solar MSE410HT0B?
Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G has a module efficiency of 23.00%, while Mission Solar MSE410HT0B is 21.00%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G use vs Mission Solar MSE410HT0B?
Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G uses N-type cells; Mission Solar MSE410HT0B 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 MST12R620HN3G and Mission Solar MSE410HT0B?
Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G has a 30 years power warranty; Mission Solar MSE410HT0B has a 25 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 MST12R620HN3G and Mission Solar MSE410HT0B bifacial panels?
Mission Solar MST12R620HN3G is bifacial (captures light from both faces); Mission Solar MSE410HT0B is monofacial. Bifacial panels work best on ground mounts or raised structures with a light-coloured surface underneath.
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.
