Skip to main content
635W vs 650W 16 of 19 identical Swap Change panels

Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-635W vs Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-650W

Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-635W
Philadelphia Solar
PS-MNB156(HCBF)-635W
635 Wp 22.75 % N-type Bifacial
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
VS
Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-650W
Philadelphia Solar
PS-MNB156(HCBF)-650W
650 Wp 23.26 % N-type Bifacial
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
The verdict

650W leads on the differences that matter

The largest is module efficiency: 0.51 pp more efficient. 16 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.

See all 3 differences
How alike are they
16 of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
identical differs
01

What actually differs

3 of 19 parameters
Parameter 635W 650W Difference
Module efficiency 22.75 % 23.26 % 0.51 pp more efficient
Power density 227.3 Wp/m² 232.6 Wp/m² 5.4 Wp/m² higher
Rated power 635 Wp 650 Wp 15 W more power
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
Same temp coeff. for both panels (-0.290 %/°C), so a warmer roof scales both curves by the same factor: the totals fall together and neither panel gains on the other.
635W
21,306 kWh
650W
21,809 kWh
Lifetime gap
503 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario 635W 650W
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 635 W 650 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.7% of rated power 607 W 622 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.3% of rated power 580 W 593 W
Hot roof 70 °C 87.0% of rated power 552 W 565 W
03

Full specification

Parameter 635W 650W Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 635 Wp 650 Wp +15 W for 650W
Module efficiency 22.75 % 23.26 % +0.51 pp for 650W
Power density 227.3 Wp/m² 232.6 Wp/m² +5.4 Wp/m² for 650W
Open-circuit voltage 56.10 V 56.55 V Effectively the same
Voltage at max power 47.52 V 48.22 V Effectively the same
Short-circuit current 14.14 A 14.26 A Effectively the same
Current at max power 13.37 A 13.48 A Effectively the same
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.290 %/°C Same
Mechanical
Dimensions 2464x1134x35 mm 2464x1134x35 mm Same
Module area 2.794 m² 2.794 m² Same
Weight 32.5 kg 32.5 kg Same
Weight per kWp 51.2 kg/kWp 50.0 kg/kWp Effectively the same
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty 12 yrs 12 yrs Same
Performance warranty 30 yrs 30 yrs Same
Annual degradation 0.40 %/yr 0.40 %/yr Same
Technology
Cell technology N-type N-type Same
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 156 156 Same
Bifacial Yes Yes Same
04

Against the whole database

14,005 panels
Efficiency
#3,207 vs #1,237
650W leads by 1,970 places
Power density
#3,230 vs #1,218
650W leads by 2,012 places
Heat behaviour
#2,165 vs #2,165
Tied - the same position in the database
Weight
#4,557 vs #3,317
650W leads by 1,240 places
Warranty
#21 vs #21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#2,296 vs #1,621
650W leads by 675 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
Philadelphia Solar
Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-635W vs Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-645W
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Philadelphia Solar
Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-635W vs Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-640W
The same specification on paper
Same series, other bin
Philadelphia Solar
Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-635W vs Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-630W
The same specification on paper
Same manufacturer
Philadelphia Solar
Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-635W vs Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB144(HCBF)-600W
10 differences, the largest is rated power
Same manufacturer
Philadelphia Solar
Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-635W vs Philadelphia Solar PS-MNG144(HCBF)-600W
9 differences, the largest is rated power
Same manufacturer
Philadelphia Solar
Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-635W vs Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB144(HCBF)-595W
10 differences, the largest is rated power
06

Written summary

07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-635W or Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-650W?
According to our database: Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-650 W has higher module efficiency (23.26% vs 22.75%). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-635W and Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-650W?
Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-635 W has a module efficiency of 22.75%, while Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-650 W is 23.26%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-635W use vs Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-650W?
Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-635 W uses N-type cells; Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-650 W 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 Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-635W and Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-650W?
Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-635 W has a 30 years power warranty; Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-650 W 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 Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-635W and Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-650W bifacial panels?
Both Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-635 W and Philadelphia Solar PS-MNB156(HCBF)-650 W 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 6 Philadelphia 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.