Runergy HY-DH108N8B-435 vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-730
VS
The verdict
DH132H10-730 leads on the differences that matter
The largest is module efficiency: 1.20 pp more efficient. 5 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.
See all 14 differencesHow alike are they
5
of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
parameters are identical
identical
differs
01
14 of 19 parameters
What actually differs
Parameter
DH108N8B-435
DH132H10-730
Difference
Module efficiency
22.30 %
23.50 %
1.20 pp more efficient
Rated power
435 Wp
730 Wp
295 W more power
Power density
222.8 Wp/m²
235.0 Wp/m²
12.2 Wp/m² higher
Temperature coefficient
-0.290 %/°C
-0.260 %/°C
0.030 %/°C better in heat
Weight
24.2 kg
38.3 kg
14.1 kg lighter
Open-circuit voltage
38.97 V
51.04 V
12.07 V apart
Short-circuit current
13.80 A
17.79 A
3.99 A apart
Module area
1.953 m²
3.106 m²
1.154 m² apart
Cell technology
N-type
HJT
N-type vs HJT
Weight per kWp
55.6 kg/kWp
52.5 kg/kWp
3.2 kg/kWp lighter
Voltage at max power
33.03 V
42.97 V
9.94 V apart
Current at max power
13.17 A
16.99 A
3.82 A apart
Cell count
108
132
24 cells apart
Dimensions
1722x1134x30 mm
2384x1303x33 mm
1722x1134x30 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
DH108N8B-435
14,595 kWh
DH132H10-730
24,569 kWh
Lifetime gap
9,974 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario
DH108N8B-435
DH132H10-730
Standard test conditions
25 °C
100.0% of rated power
435 W
730 W
Cool, bright day
40 °C
95.7% of rated power
416 W
702 W
Typical summer roof
55 °C
91.3% of rated power
397 W
673 W
Hot roof
70 °C
87.0% of rated power
378 W
645 W
03
Full specification
Parameter
DH108N8B-435
DH132H10-730
Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power
435 Wp
730 Wp
+295 W for DH132H10-730
Module efficiency
22.30 %
23.50 %
+1.20 pp for DH132H10-730
Power density
222.8 Wp/m²
235.0 Wp/m²
+12.2 Wp/m² for DH132H10-730
Open-circuit voltage
38.97 V
51.04 V
12.07 V apart
Voltage at max power
33.03 V
42.97 V
9.94 V apart
Short-circuit current
13.80 A
17.79 A
3.99 A apart
Current at max power
13.17 A
16.99 A
3.82 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient
-0.290 %/°C
-0.260 %/°C
+0.030 %/°C for DH132H10-730
Mechanical
Dimensions
1722x1134x30 mm
2384x1303x33 mm
1722x1134x30 mm vs 2384x1303x33 mm
Module area
1.953 m²
3.106 m²
1.154 m² apart
Weight
24.2 kg
38.3 kg
-14.1 kg for DH108N8B-435
Weight per kWp
55.6 kg/kWp
52.5 kg/kWp
-3.2 kg/kWp for DH132H10-730
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
14,005 panels
Against the whole database
Efficiency
#5,100
vs
#716
DH132H10-730 leads by 4,384 places
Power density
#5,150
vs
#800
DH132H10-730 leads by 4,350 places
Heat behaviour
#2,165
vs
#511
DH132H10-730 leads by 1,654 places
Weight
#10,001
vs
#5,993
DH132H10-730 leads by 4,008 places
Warranty
#21
vs
#21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#9,745
vs
#312
DH132H10-730 leads by 9,433 places
05
Open the full database
More useful comparisons
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH108N8B-435 vs Runergy HY-DH108N8B-450
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH108N8B-435 vs Runergy HY-DH108N8-450
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH108N8B-435 vs Runergy HY-DH108N8B-445
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH108N8B-435 vs Runergy HY-DH108N8-445
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH108N8B-435 vs Runergy HY-DH108N8B-440
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH108N8B-435 vs Runergy HY-DH108N8-440
One difference: module efficiency
06
Written summary
Checking cache...
07
Questions about this pairing
Which panel is better: Runergy HY-DH108N8B-435 or Runergy HY-DH132H10-730?
According to our database: Runergy HY-DH132H10-730 has higher module efficiency (23.50% vs 22.30%); Runergy HY-DH132H10-730 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-DH108N8B-435 and Runergy HY-DH132H10-730?
Runergy HY-DH108N8B-435 has a module efficiency of 22.30%, while Runergy HY-DH132H10-730 is 23.50%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Runergy HY-DH108N8B-435 use vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-730?
Runergy HY-DH108N8B-435 uses N-type cells; Runergy HY-DH132H10-730 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-DH108N8B-435 and Runergy HY-DH132H10-730?
Runergy HY-DH108N8B-435 has a 30 years power warranty; Runergy HY-DH132H10-730 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-DH108N8B-435 and Runergy HY-DH132H10-730 bifacial panels?
Both Runergy HY-DH108N8B-435 and Runergy HY-DH132H10-730 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 4 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.