Skip to main content
585 vs 600 15 of 18 identical Swap Change panels

Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 585 vs Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 600

Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 585
Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 585
585 Wp 21.00 % PERC Bifacial
VS
Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 600
Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 600
600 Wp 21.50 % PERC Bifacial
The verdict

600 leads on the differences that matter

The largest is module efficiency: 0.50 pp more efficient. 15 of 18 comparable parameters are identical, with 1 more left out because at least one datasheet does not publish it.

See all 3 differences
How alike are they
15 of 18 comparable
parameters are identical
identical differs not published
01

What actually differs

3 of 18 parameters
Parameter 585 600 Difference
Module efficiency 21.00 % 21.50 % 0.50 pp more efficient
Power density 209.5 Wp/m² 214.9 Wp/m² 5.4 Wp/m² higher
Rated power 585 Wp 600 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 (-0.340 %/°C), so a warmer roof scales both curves by the same factor: the totals fall together and neither panel gains on the other.
585
19,265 kWh
600
19,759 kWh
Lifetime gap
494 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario 585 600
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 585 W 600 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 94.9% of rated power 555 W 569 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 89.8% of rated power 525 W 539 W
Hot roof 70 °C 84.7% of rated power 495 W 508 W
03

Full specification

Parameter 585 600 Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 585 Wp 600 Wp +15 W for 600
Module efficiency 21.00 % 21.50 % +0.50 pp for 600
Power density 209.5 Wp/m² 214.9 Wp/m² +5.4 Wp/m² for 600
Open-circuit voltage 53.57 V 53.66 V Effectively the same
Voltage at max power 44.75 V 45.39 V Effectively the same
Short-circuit current 13.72 A 13.80 A Effectively the same
Current at max power 13.07 A 13.22 A Effectively the same
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.340 %/°C -0.340 %/°C Same
Mechanical
Dimensions 2462x1134x35 mm 2462x1134x35 mm Same
Module area 2.792 m² 2.792 m² Same
Weight 36.4 kg 36.4 kg Same
Weight per kWp 62.2 kg/kWp 60.7 kg/kWp Effectively the same
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty - - Neither datasheet publishes this
Performance warranty 30 yrs 30 yrs Same
Annual degradation 0.45 %/yr 0.45 %/yr Same
Technology
Cell technology PERC PERC Same
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 156 156 Same
Bifacial Yes Yes Same
04

Against the whole database

14,005 panels
Efficiency
#9,758 vs #7,958
600 leads by 1,800 places
Power density
#9,941 vs #8,031
600 leads by 1,910 places
Heat behaviour
#8,778 vs #8,778
Tied - the same position in the database
Weight
#12,754 vs #12,510
600 leads by 244 places
Warranty
#21 vs #21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#8,794 vs #7,604
600 leads by 1,190 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 585 vs Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 595
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 585 vs Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 590
The same specification on paper
Same manufacturer
Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 585 vs Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO ML-G12S.3 / BFG 675
12 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same manufacturer
Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 585 vs Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO ML-G12S.3 / BFG 670
12 differences, the largest is rated power
Same manufacturer
Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 585 vs Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO ML-G12S.3 / BFG 665
12 differences, the largest is rated power
Same manufacturer
Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 585 vs Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO ML-G12S.3 / BFG 660
11 differences, the largest is rated power
06

Written summary

Checking cache...
07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 585 or Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 600?
According to our database: Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 600 has higher module efficiency (21.50% vs 21.00%). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 585 and Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 600?
Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 585 has a module efficiency of 21.00%, while Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 600 is 21.50%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 585 use vs Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 600?
Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 585 uses PERC cells; Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 600 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 Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 585 and Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 600?
Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 585 has a 30 years power warranty; Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 600 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 Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 585 and Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 600 bifacial panels?
Both Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 585 and Q-Cells Q.PEAK DUO RSF XL-G11S.3 / BFG 600 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 25 Q-Cells 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.