Skip to main content
REC460AA Pure-RX vs REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp 11 of 18 identical Swap Change panels

REC REC460AA Pure-RX vs REC REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp

REC REC460AA Pure-RX
REC
REC460AA Pure-RX
460 Wp 22.10 % HJT Bifacial
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
VS
REC REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp
REC
REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp
470 Wp 22.60 % HJT
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
The verdict

REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp leads on the differences that matter

The largest is module efficiency: 0.50 pp more efficient. 11 of 18 comparable parameters are identical, with 1 more left out because at least one datasheet does not publish it.

See all 7 differences
How alike are they
11 of 18 comparable
parameters are identical
identical differs not published
01

What actually differs

7 of 18 parameters
Parameter REC460AA Pure-RX REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp Difference
Module efficiency 22.10 % 22.60 % 0.50 pp more efficient
Product warranty 20 yrs 25 yrs 5 yrs longer
Power density 220.9 Wp/m² 226.0 Wp/m² 5.1 Wp/m² higher
Annual degradation 0.25 %/yr 0.33 %/yr 0.08 %/yr slower
Rated power 460 Wp 470 Wp 10 W more power
Bifacial Yes No Yes vs No
Dimensions 1728x1205x30 mm 1727x1204x31 mm 1728x1205x30 mm vs 1727x1204x31 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
Same temp coeff. for both panels (-0.240 %/°C), so a warmer roof scales both curves by the same factor: the totals fall together and neither panel gains on the other.
REC460AA Pure-RX
15,628 kWh
REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp
16,108 kWh
Lifetime gap
480 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario REC460AA Pure-RX REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 460 W 470 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 96.4% of rated power 443 W 453 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 92.8% of rated power 427 W 436 W
Hot roof 70 °C 89.2% of rated power 410 W 419 W
03

Full specification

Parameter REC460AA Pure-RX REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 460 Wp 470 Wp +10 W for REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp
Module efficiency 22.10 % 22.60 % +0.50 pp for REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp
Power density 220.9 Wp/m² 226.0 Wp/m² +5.1 Wp/m² for REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp
Open-circuit voltage 65.70 V 65.70 V Same
Voltage at max power 54.90 V 55.40 V Effectively the same
Short-circuit current 8.88 A 8.95 A Effectively the same
Current at max power 8.38 A 8.49 A Effectively the same
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.240 %/°C -0.240 %/°C Same
Mechanical
Dimensions 1728x1205x30 mm 1727x1204x31 mm 1728x1205x30 mm vs 1727x1204x31 mm
Module area 2.082 m² 2.079 m² Effectively the same
Weight 22.7 kg 23.4 kg Effectively the same
Weight per kWp 49.3 kg/kWp 49.8 kg/kWp Effectively the same
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty 20 yrs 25 yrs +5 yrs for REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp
Performance warranty 25 yrs 25 yrs Same
Annual degradation 0.25 %/yr 0.33 %/yr -0.08 %/yr for REC460AA Pure-RX
Technology
Cell technology HJT HJT Same
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 88 - Not published by REC
Bifacial Yes No Yes vs No
04

Against the whole database

14,005 panels
Efficiency
#6,012 vs #3,658
REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp leads by 2,354 places
Power density
#6,007 vs #3,709
REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp leads by 2,298 places
Heat behaviour
#13 vs #13
Tied - the same position in the database
Weight
#2,871 vs #3,227
REC460AA Pure-RX leads by 356 places
Warranty
#9,798 vs #9,798
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#8,585 vs #6,413
REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp leads by 2,172 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
REC
REC REC460AA Pure-RX vs REC REC475AA Pure-RX
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
REC
REC REC460AA Pure-RX vs REC REC470AA Pure-RX
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
REC
REC REC460AA Pure-RX vs REC REC Alpha Pure-RX 470
6 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
REC
REC REC460AA Pure-RX vs REC REC465AA Pure-RX
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
REC
REC REC460AA Pure-RX vs REC REC455AA Pure-RX
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
REC
REC REC460AA Pure-RX vs REC REC450AA Pure-RX
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06

Written summary

07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: REC REC460AA Pure-RX or REC REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp?
According to our database: REC REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp has higher module efficiency (22.60% vs 22.10%). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of REC REC460AA Pure-RX and REC REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp?
REC REC460AA Pure-RX has a module efficiency of 22.10%, while REC REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp is 22.60%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does REC REC460AA Pure-RX use vs REC REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp?
REC REC460AA Pure-RX uses HJT cells; REC REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp uses HJT. 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 REC REC460AA Pure-RX and REC REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp?
REC REC460AA Pure-RX has a 25 years power warranty; REC REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp 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 REC REC460AA Pure-RX and REC REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp bifacial panels?
REC REC460AA Pure-RX is bifacial (captures light from both faces); REC REC Alpha Pure-RX 470 Wp is monofacial. Bifacial panels work best on ground mounts or raised structures with a light-coloured surface underneath.

Shop prices: See 7 REC 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.