Skip to main content
DH108N11-500 vs DH132H10-740 5 of 19 identical Swap Change panels

Runergy HY-DH108N11-500 vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-740

Runergy HY-DH108N11-500
Runergy
HY-DH108N11-500
500 Wp 22.50 % N-type Bifacial
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
VS
Runergy
HY-DH132H10-740
740 Wp 23.80 % HJT Bifacial
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
The verdict

DH132H10-740 leads on the differences that matter

The largest is module efficiency: 1.30 pp more efficient. 5 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.

See all 14 differences
How alike are they
5 of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
identical differs
01

What actually differs

14 of 19 parameters
Parameter DH108N11-500 DH132H10-740 Difference
Module efficiency 22.50 % 23.80 % 1.30 pp more efficient
Rated power 500 Wp 740 Wp 240 W more power
Power density 224.8 Wp/m² 238.2 Wp/m² 13.4 Wp/m² higher
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.260 %/°C 0.030 %/°C better in heat
Weight 27.5 kg 38.3 kg 10.8 kg lighter
Open-circuit voltage 40.09 V 51.34 V 11.25 V apart
Short-circuit current 15.85 A 17.91 A 2.06 A apart
Module area 2.224 m² 3.106 m² 0.883 m² apart
Cell technology N-type HJT N-type vs HJT
Weight per kWp 55.0 kg/kWp 51.8 kg/kWp 3.2 kg/kWp lighter
Voltage at max power 33.29 V 43.25 V 9.96 V apart
Current at max power 15.02 A 17.11 A 2.09 A apart
Cell count 108 132 24 cells apart
Dimensions 1961x1134x30 mm 2384x1303x33 mm 1961x1134x30 mm vs 2384x1303x33 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
DH108N11-500
16,776 kWh
DH132H10-740
24,906 kWh
Lifetime gap
8,130 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario DH108N11-500 DH132H10-740
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 500 W 740 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.7% of rated power 478 W 711 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.3% of rated power 457 W 682 W
Hot roof 70 °C 87.0% of rated power 435 W 653 W
03

Full specification

Parameter DH108N11-500 DH132H10-740 Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 500 Wp 740 Wp +240 W for DH132H10-740
Module efficiency 22.50 % 23.80 % +1.30 pp for DH132H10-740
Power density 224.8 Wp/m² 238.2 Wp/m² +13.4 Wp/m² for DH132H10-740
Open-circuit voltage 40.09 V 51.34 V 11.25 V apart
Voltage at max power 33.29 V 43.25 V 9.96 V apart
Short-circuit current 15.85 A 17.91 A 2.06 A apart
Current at max power 15.02 A 17.11 A 2.09 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.260 %/°C +0.030 %/°C for DH132H10-740
Mechanical
Dimensions 1961x1134x30 mm 2384x1303x33 mm 1961x1134x30 mm vs 2384x1303x33 mm
Module area 2.224 m² 3.106 m² 0.883 m² apart
Weight 27.5 kg 38.3 kg -10.8 kg for DH108N11-500
Weight per kWp 55.0 kg/kWp 51.8 kg/kWp -3.2 kg/kWp for DH132H10-740
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty 12 yrs 12 yrs Same
Performance warranty 30 yrs 30 yrs Same
Annual degradation 0.40 %/yr 0.38 %/yr Effectively the same
Technology
Cell technology N-type HJT N-type vs HJT
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 108 132 24 cells apart
Bifacial Yes Yes Same
04

Against the whole database

14,129 panels
Efficiency
#4,281 vs #462
DH132H10-740 leads by 3,819 places
Power density
#4,528 vs #460
DH132H10-740 leads by 4,068 places
Heat behaviour
#2,220 vs #515
DH132H10-740 leads by 1,705 places
Weight
#9,445 vs #5,156
DH132H10-740 leads by 4,289 places
Warranty
#21 vs #21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#7,365 vs #185
DH132H10-740 leads by 7,180 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH108N11-500 vs Runergy HY-DH108N11-530
6 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH108N11-500 vs Runergy HY-DH108N11-525
5 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH108N11-500 vs Runergy HY-DH108N11-520
5 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH108N11-500 vs Runergy HY-DH108N11-515
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH108N11-500 vs Runergy HY-DH108N11-510
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH108N11-500 vs Runergy HY-DH108N11-505
One difference: module efficiency
06

Written summary

07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: Runergy HY-DH108N11-500 or Runergy HY-DH132H10-740?
According to our database: Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 has higher module efficiency (23.80% vs 22.50%); Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 tolerates heat better (temp coeff -0.260%/°C vs -0.290%/°C). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of Runergy HY-DH108N11-500 and Runergy HY-DH132H10-740?
Runergy HY-DH108N11-500 has a module efficiency of 22.50%, while Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 is 23.80%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Runergy HY-DH108N11-500 use vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-740?
Runergy HY-DH108N11-500 uses N-type cells; Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 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 Runergy HY-DH108N11-500 and Runergy HY-DH132H10-740?
Runergy HY-DH108N11-500 has a 30 years power warranty; Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 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 Runergy HY-DH108N11-500 and Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 bifacial panels?
Both Runergy HY-DH108N11-500 and Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 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 5 Runergy 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.