Runergy HY-DH132H10-735 vs Runergy HY-DH96N11B-450
VS
The verdict
DH132H10-735 leads on the differences that matter
The largest is module efficiency: 1.20 pp more efficient. 4 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.
See all 15 differencesHow alike are they
4
of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
parameters are identical
identical
differs
01
15 of 19 parameters
What actually differs
Parameter
DH132H10-735
DH96N11B-450
Difference
Module efficiency
23.70 %
22.50 %
1.20 pp more efficient
Rated power
735 Wp
450 Wp
285 W more power
Power density
236.6 Wp/m²
225.2 Wp/m²
11.4 Wp/m² higher
Temperature coefficient
-0.260 %/°C
-0.290 %/°C
0.030 %/°C better in heat
Weight
38.3 kg
25.0 kg
13.3 kg lighter
Open-circuit voltage
51.19 V
35.26 V
15.93 V apart
Module area
3.106 m²
1.998 m²
1.108 m² apart
Short-circuit current
17.85 A
16.07 A
1.78 A apart
Weight per kWp
52.1 kg/kWp
55.6 kg/kWp
3.4 kg/kWp lighter
Cell technology
HJT
N-type
HJT vs N-type
Voltage at max power
43.11 V
29.44 V
13.67 V apart
Cell count
132
96
36 cells apart
Current at max power
17.05 A
15.29 A
1.76 A apart
Bifacial
Yes
No
Yes vs No
Dimensions
2384x1303x33 mm
1762x1134x30 mm
2384x1303x33 mm vs 1762x1134x30 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
DH132H10-735
24,737 kWh
DH96N11B-450
15,098 kWh
Lifetime gap
9,639 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario
DH132H10-735
DH96N11B-450
Standard test conditions
25 °C
100.0% of rated power
735 W
450 W
Cool, bright day
40 °C
95.7% of rated power
706 W
430 W
Typical summer roof
55 °C
91.3% of rated power
678 W
411 W
Hot roof
70 °C
87.0% of rated power
649 W
391 W
03
Full specification
Parameter
DH132H10-735
DH96N11B-450
Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power
735 Wp
450 Wp
+285 W for DH132H10-735
Module efficiency
23.70 %
22.50 %
+1.20 pp for DH132H10-735
Power density
236.6 Wp/m²
225.2 Wp/m²
+11.4 Wp/m² for DH132H10-735
Open-circuit voltage
51.19 V
35.26 V
15.93 V apart
Voltage at max power
43.11 V
29.44 V
13.67 V apart
Short-circuit current
17.85 A
16.07 A
1.78 A apart
Current at max power
17.05 A
15.29 A
1.76 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient
-0.260 %/°C
-0.290 %/°C
+0.030 %/°C for DH132H10-735
Mechanical
Dimensions
2384x1303x33 mm
1762x1134x30 mm
2384x1303x33 mm vs 1762x1134x30 mm
Module area
3.106 m²
1.998 m²
1.108 m² apart
Weight
38.3 kg
25.0 kg
-13.3 kg for DH96N11B-450
Weight per kWp
52.1 kg/kWp
55.6 kg/kWp
-3.4 kg/kWp for DH132H10-735
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty
12 yrs
12 yrs
Same
Performance warranty
30 yrs
30 yrs
Same
Annual degradation
0.38 %/yr
0.40 %/yr
Effectively the same
Technology
Cell technology
HJT
N-type
HJT vs N-type
Cell type
Monocrystalline
Monocrystalline
Same
Cell count
132
96
36 cells apart
Bifacial
Yes
No
Yes vs No
04
14,129 panels
Against the whole database
Efficiency
#549
vs
#4,281
DH132H10-735 leads by 3,732 places
Power density
#614
vs
#4,284
DH132H10-735 leads by 3,670 places
Heat behaviour
#515
vs
#2,220
DH132H10-735 leads by 1,705 places
Weight
#5,616
vs
#9,992
DH132H10-735 leads by 4,376 places
Warranty
#21
vs
#21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#234
vs
#9,181
DH132H10-735 leads by 8,947 places
05
Open the full database
More useful comparisons
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH132H10-735 vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-740
The same specification on paper
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH132H10-735 vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-740
One difference: dimensions
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH132H10-735 vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-735
One difference: dimensions
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH132H10-735 vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-730
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH132H10-735 vs Runergy HY-DH132N10-730
7 differences, the largest is temperature coefficient
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH132H10-735 vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-730
2 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06
Written summary
Checking cache...
07
Questions about this pairing
Which panel is better: Runergy HY-DH132H10-735 or Runergy HY-DH96N11B-450?
According to our database: Runergy HY-DH132H10-735 has higher module efficiency (23.70% vs 22.50%); Runergy HY-DH132H10-735 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-DH132H10-735 and Runergy HY-DH96N11B-450?
Runergy HY-DH132H10-735 has a module efficiency of 23.70%, while Runergy HY-DH96N11B-450 is 22.50%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Runergy HY-DH132H10-735 use vs Runergy HY-DH96N11B-450?
Runergy HY-DH132H10-735 uses HJT cells; Runergy HY-DH96N11B-450 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-DH132H10-735 and Runergy HY-DH96N11B-450?
Runergy HY-DH132H10-735 has a 30 years power warranty; Runergy HY-DH96N11B-450 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-DH132H10-735 and Runergy HY-DH96N11B-450 bifacial panels?
Runergy HY-DH132H10-735 is bifacial (captures light from both faces); Runergy HY-DH96N11B-450 is monofacial. Bifacial panels work best on ground mounts or raised structures with a light-coloured surface underneath.
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.