--- title: "Runergy HY-DH108N11-520 vs Runergy HY-DH108N8-435 - Solar Panel Comparison | ComparePV" description: "Compare Runergy HY-DH108N11-520 vs Runergy HY-DH108N8-435 side by side: what actually differs, output when it is hot, thirty-year production, and the full specification." source: "https://comparepv.com/compare/runergy-hy-dh108n11-520/runergy-hy-dh108n8-435" updated: 2026-09-12 --- # Runergy HY-DH108N11-520 vs Runergy HY-DH108N8-435 DH108N11-520 leads on the differences that matter The largest is module efficiency: 1.10 pp more efficient. 8 of 19 comparable parameters are identical. ## The two panels | Attribute | A | B | | --- | --- | --- | | Panel | [Runergy HY-DH108N11-520](https://comparepv.com/panel/runergy-hy-dh108n11-520) | [Runergy HY-DH108N8-435](https://comparepv.com/panel/runergy-hy-dh108n8-435) | | Manufacturer | Runergy | Runergy | | Power | 520 Wp | 435 Wp | | Efficiency | 23.40 % | 22.30 % | | Technology | N-type | N-type | ## Where they differ Ranked by how much the difference matters, not by datasheet order. | Parameter | DH108N11-520 | DH108N8-435 | Difference | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Module efficiency | 23.40 % | 22.30 % | +1.10 pp for DH108N11-520 | | Rated power | 520 Wp | 435 Wp | +85 W for DH108N11-520 | | Power density | 233.8 Wp/m² | 222.8 Wp/m² | +11.1 Wp/m² for DH108N11-520 | | Weight | 27.5 kg | 24.2 kg | -3.3 kg for DH108N8-435 | | Short-circuit current | 16.03 A | 13.80 A | 2.23 A apart | | Module area | 2.224 m² | 1.953 m² | 0.271 m² apart | | Open-circuit voltage | 41.19 V | 38.97 V | 2.22 V apart | | Weight per kWp | 52.9 kg/kWp | 55.6 kg/kWp | -2.7 kg/kWp for DH108N11-520 | | Current at max power | 15.26 A | 13.17 A | 2.09 A apart | | Dimensions | 1961x1134x30 mm | 1722x1134x30 mm | 1961x1134x30 mm vs 1722x1134x30 mm | | Voltage at max power | 34.08 V | 33.03 V | 1.05 V apart | ## Every compared parameter | Parameter | DH108N11-520 | DH108N8-435 | | --- | --- | --- | | Rated power | 520 Wp | 435 Wp | | Module efficiency | 23.40 % | 22.30 % | | Power density | 233.8 Wp/m² | 222.8 Wp/m² | | Open-circuit voltage | 41.19 V | 38.97 V | | Voltage at max power | 34.08 V | 33.03 V | | Short-circuit current | 16.03 A | 13.80 A | | Current at max power | 15.26 A | 13.17 A | | Temperature coefficient | -0.290 %/°C | -0.290 %/°C | | Dimensions | 1961x1134x30 mm | 1722x1134x30 mm | | Module area | 2.224 m² | 1.953 m² | | Weight | 27.5 kg | 24.2 kg | | Weight per kWp | 52.9 kg/kWp | 55.6 kg/kWp | | Product warranty | 12 yrs | 12 yrs | | Performance warranty | 30 yrs | 30 yrs | | Annual degradation | 0.40 %/yr | 0.40 %/yr | | Cell technology | N-type | N-type | | Cell type | Monocrystalline | Monocrystalline | | Cell count | 108 | 108 | | Bifacial | Yes | Yes | ## Thirty-year yield 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. - **Cumulative output, DH108N11-520:** 17,447 kWh - **Cumulative output, DH108N8-435:** 14,595 kWh - **Gap:** 2,852 kWh ## Output when hot | Condition | Cell temperature | DH108N11-520 | DH108N8-435 | Retained | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Standard test conditions | 25 °C | 520 W | 435 W | 100.0% of rated power | | Cool, bright day | 40 °C | 497 W | 416 W | 95.7% of rated power | | Typical summer roof | 55 °C | 475 W | 397 W | 91.3% of rated power | | Hot roof | 70 °C | 452 W | 378 W | 87.0% of rated power | ## Against the whole database | Measure | DH108N11-520 | DH108N8-435 | Out of | Note | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Efficiency | #882 | #5,100 | 14,005 | DH108N11-520 leads by 4,218 places | | Power density | #909 | #5,150 | 14,005 | DH108N11-520 leads by 4,241 places | | Heat behaviour | #2,165 | #2,165 | 14,005 | Tied - the same position in the database | | Weight | #6,597 | #10,001 | 14,005 | DH108N11-520 leads by 3,404 places | | Warranty | #21 | #21 | 14,005 | Tied - the same position in the database | | Overall | #5,442 | #9,745 | 14,005 | DH108N11-520 leads by 4,303 places | ## Questions ### Which panel is better: Runergy HY-DH108N11-520 or Runergy HY-DH108N8-435? According to our database: **Runergy HY-DH108N11-520** has higher module efficiency (**23.40%** vs **22.30%**). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture. ### What is the efficiency of Runergy HY-DH108N11-520 and Runergy HY-DH108N8-435? **Runergy HY-DH108N11-520** has a module efficiency of **23.40%**, while **Runergy HY-DH108N8-435** is **22.30%**. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited. ### What cell technology does Runergy HY-DH108N11-520 use vs Runergy HY-DH108N8-435? **Runergy HY-DH108N11-520** uses **N-type** cells; **Runergy HY-DH108N8-435** 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 Runergy HY-DH108N11-520 and Runergy HY-DH108N8-435? **Runergy HY-DH108N11-520** has a **30 years** power warranty; **Runergy HY-DH108N8-435** 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-DH108N11-520 and Runergy HY-DH108N8-435 bifacial panels? Both **Runergy HY-DH108N11-520** and **Runergy HY-DH108N8-435** 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. ## Related comparisons - [Runergy HY-DH108N11-520 vs Runergy HY-DH108N11-530](https://comparepv.com/compare/runergy-hy-dh108n11-520/runergy-hy-dh108n11-530) - 3 differences, the largest is module efficiency - [Runergy HY-DH108N11-520 vs Runergy HY-DH108N11-525](https://comparepv.com/compare/runergy-hy-dh108n11-520/runergy-hy-dh108n11-525) - One difference: module efficiency - [Runergy HY-DH108N11-520 vs Runergy HY-DH108N11-515](https://comparepv.com/compare/runergy-hy-dh108n11-520/runergy-hy-dh108n11-515) - One difference: module efficiency - [Runergy HY-DH108N11-520 vs Runergy HY-DH108N11-510](https://comparepv.com/compare/runergy-hy-dh108n11-520/runergy-hy-dh108n11-510) - 3 differences, the largest is module efficiency - [Runergy HY-DH108N11-520 vs Runergy HY-DH108N11-505](https://comparepv.com/compare/runergy-hy-dh108n11-520/runergy-hy-dh108n11-505) - 3 differences, the largest is module efficiency - [Runergy HY-DH108N11-520 vs Runergy HY-DH108N11-500](https://comparepv.com/compare/runergy-hy-dh108n11-520/runergy-hy-dh108n11-500) - 5 differences, the largest is module efficiency --- Source: https://comparepv.com/compare/runergy-hy-dh108n11-520/runergy-hy-dh108n8-435 Not in this file, on the page: the thirty-year yield curve year by year at a cell temperature you pick and a written summary generated on request.