Skip to main content
DH132H10-740 vs DH108N11-510 5 of 19 identical Swap Change panels

Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 vs Runergy HY-DH108N11-510

Runergy
HY-DH132H10-740
740 Wp 23.80 % HJT Bifacial
VS
Runergy HY-DH108N11-510
Runergy
HY-DH108N11-510
510 Wp 22.90 % N-type Bifacial
The verdict

DH132H10-740 leads on the differences that matter

The largest is module efficiency: 0.90 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 DH132H10-740 DH108N11-510 Difference
Module efficiency 23.80 % 22.90 % 0.90 pp more efficient
Rated power 740 Wp 510 Wp 230 W more power
Temperature coefficient -0.260 %/°C -0.290 %/°C 0.030 %/°C better in heat
Weight 38.3 kg 27.5 kg 10.8 kg lighter
Power density 238.2 Wp/m² 229.3 Wp/m² 8.9 Wp/m² higher
Open-circuit voltage 51.34 V 40.59 V 10.75 V apart
Module area 3.106 m² 2.224 m² 0.883 m² apart
Short-circuit current 17.91 A 15.93 A 1.98 A apart
Cell technology HJT N-type HJT vs N-type
Voltage at max power 43.25 V 33.69 V 9.56 V apart
Cell count 132 108 24 cells apart
Current at max power 17.11 A 15.14 A 1.97 A apart
Weight per kWp 51.8 kg/kWp 53.9 kg/kWp 2.2 kg/kWp lighter
Dimensions 2384x1303x33 mm 1961x1134x30 mm 2384x1303x33 mm vs 1961x1134x30 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
DH132H10-740
24,906 kWh
DH108N11-510
17,112 kWh
Lifetime gap
7,794 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario DH132H10-740 DH108N11-510
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 740 W 510 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.7% of rated power 711 W 488 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.3% of rated power 682 W 466 W
Hot roof 70 °C 87.0% of rated power 653 W 443 W
03

Full specification

Parameter DH132H10-740 DH108N11-510 Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 740 Wp 510 Wp +230 W for DH132H10-740
Module efficiency 23.80 % 22.90 % +0.90 pp for DH132H10-740
Power density 238.2 Wp/m² 229.3 Wp/m² +8.9 Wp/m² for DH132H10-740
Open-circuit voltage 51.34 V 40.59 V 10.75 V apart
Voltage at max power 43.25 V 33.69 V 9.56 V apart
Short-circuit current 17.91 A 15.93 A 1.98 A apart
Current at max power 17.11 A 15.14 A 1.97 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.260 %/°C -0.290 %/°C +0.030 %/°C for DH132H10-740
Mechanical
Dimensions 2384x1303x33 mm 1961x1134x30 mm 2384x1303x33 mm vs 1961x1134x30 mm
Module area 3.106 m² 2.224 m² 0.883 m² apart
Weight 38.3 kg 27.5 kg -10.8 kg for DH108N11-510
Weight per kWp 51.8 kg/kWp 53.9 kg/kWp -2.2 kg/kWp for DH132H10-740
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty 12 yrs 12 yrs Same
Performance warranty 30 yrs 30 yrs Same
Annual degradation 0.38 %/yr 0.40 %/yr Effectively the same
Technology
Cell technology HJT N-type HJT vs N-type
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 132 108 24 cells apart
Bifacial Yes Yes Same
04

Against the whole database

14,129 panels
Efficiency
#462 vs #2,412
DH132H10-740 leads by 1,950 places
Power density
#460 vs #2,397
DH132H10-740 leads by 1,937 places
Heat behaviour
#515 vs #2,220
DH132H10-740 leads by 1,705 places
Weight
#5,156 vs #8,151
DH132H10-740 leads by 2,995 places
Warranty
#21 vs #21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#185 vs #6,468
DH132H10-740 leads by 6,283 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-740
One difference: dimensions
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-735
The same specification on paper
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-735
One difference: dimensions
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-730
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 vs Runergy HY-DH132N10-730
9 differences, the largest is temperature coefficient
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-730
4 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06

Written summary

Checking cache...
07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 or Runergy HY-DH108N11-510?
According to our database: Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 has higher module efficiency (23.80% vs 22.90%); 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-DH132H10-740 and Runergy HY-DH108N11-510?
Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 has a module efficiency of 23.80%, while Runergy HY-DH108N11-510 is 22.90%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 use vs Runergy HY-DH108N11-510?
Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 uses HJT cells; Runergy HY-DH108N11-510 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-DH132H10-740 and Runergy HY-DH108N11-510?
Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 has a 30 years power warranty; Runergy HY-DH108N11-510 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-DH132H10-740 and Runergy HY-DH108N11-510 bifacial panels?
Both Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 and Runergy HY-DH108N11-510 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.