--- title: "Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 vs Runergy HY-DH96N11B-465 - Solar Panel Comparison | ComparePV" description: "Compare Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 vs Runergy HY-DH96N11B-465 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-dh132h10-740/runergy-hy-dh96n11b-465" image: "https://comparepv.com/og/compare/panels/runergy-hy-dh132h10-740/runergy-hy-dh96n11b-465.png" updated: 2026-09-12 --- # Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 vs Runergy HY-DH96N11B-465 DH132H10-740 leads on the differences that matter The largest is rated power: 275 W more power. 4 of 19 comparable parameters are identical. ## The two panels | Attribute | A | B | | --- | --- | --- | | Panel | [Runergy HY-DH132H10-740](https://comparepv.com/panel/runergy-hy-dh132h10-740) | [Runergy HY-DH96N11B-465](https://comparepv.com/panel/runergy-hy-dh96n11b-465) | | Manufacturer | Runergy | Runergy | | Power | 740 Wp | 465 Wp | | Efficiency | 23.80 % | 23.30 % | | Technology | HJT | N-type | ## Where they differ Ranked by how much the difference matters, not by datasheet order. | Parameter | DH132H10-740 | DH96N11B-465 | Difference | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Rated power | 740 Wp | 465 Wp | +275 W for DH132H10-740 | | Temperature coefficient | -0.260 %/°C | -0.290 %/°C | +0.030 %/°C for DH132H10-740 | | Module efficiency | 23.80 % | 23.30 % | +0.50 pp for DH132H10-740 | | Weight | 38.3 kg | 25.0 kg | -13.3 kg for DH96N11B-465 | | Open-circuit voltage | 51.34 V | 35.65 V | 15.69 V apart | | Module area | 3.106 m² | 1.998 m² | 1.108 m² apart | | Power density | 238.2 Wp/m² | 232.7 Wp/m² | +5.5 Wp/m² for DH132H10-740 | | Short-circuit current | 17.91 A | 16.31 A | 1.60 A apart | | Cell technology | HJT | N-type | HJT vs N-type | | Voltage at max power | 43.25 V | 29.83 V | 13.42 V apart | | Cell count | 132 | 96 | 36 cells apart | | Current at max power | 17.11 A | 15.59 A | 1.52 A apart | | Weight per kWp | 51.8 kg/kWp | 53.8 kg/kWp | -2.0 kg/kWp for DH132H10-740 | | Bifacial | Yes | No | Yes vs No | | Dimensions | 2384x1303x33 mm | 1762x1134x30 mm | 2384x1303x33 mm vs 1762x1134x30 mm | ## Every compared parameter | Parameter | DH132H10-740 | DH96N11B-465 | | --- | --- | --- | | Rated power | 740 Wp | 465 Wp | | Module efficiency | 23.80 % | 23.30 % | | Power density | 238.2 Wp/m² | 232.7 Wp/m² | | Open-circuit voltage | 51.34 V | 35.65 V | | Voltage at max power | 43.25 V | 29.83 V | | Short-circuit current | 17.91 A | 16.31 A | | Current at max power | 17.11 A | 15.59 A | | Temperature coefficient | -0.260 %/°C | -0.290 %/°C | | Dimensions | 2384x1303x33 mm | 1762x1134x30 mm | | Module area | 3.106 m² | 1.998 m² | | Weight | 38.3 kg | 25.0 kg | | Weight per kWp | 51.8 kg/kWp | 53.8 kg/kWp | | Product warranty | 12 yrs | 12 yrs | | Performance warranty | 30 yrs | 30 yrs | | Annual degradation | 0.38 %/yr | 0.40 %/yr | | Cell technology | HJT | N-type | | Cell type | Monocrystalline | Monocrystalline | | Cell count | 132 | 96 | | Bifacial | Yes | No | ## Thirty-year yield Each panel's own declared degradation curve, at 1,200 kWh/kWp a year - **Cumulative output, DH132H10-740:** 24,906 kWh - **Cumulative output, DH96N11B-465:** 15,602 kWh - **Gap:** 9,304 kWh ## Output when hot | Condition | Cell temperature | DH132H10-740 | DH96N11B-465 | Retained | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Standard test conditions | 25 °C | 740 W | 465 W | 100.0% of rated power | | Cool, bright day | 40 °C | 711 W | 445 W | 95.7% of rated power | | Typical summer roof | 55 °C | 682 W | 425 W | 91.3% of rated power | | Hot roof | 70 °C | 653 W | 404 W | 87.0% of rated power | ## Against the whole database | Measure | DH132H10-740 | DH96N11B-465 | Out of | Note | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Efficiency | #462 | #1,057 | 14,129 | DH132H10-740 leads by 595 places | | Power density | #460 | #1,156 | 14,129 | DH132H10-740 leads by 696 places | | Heat behaviour | #515 | #2,220 | 14,129 | DH132H10-740 leads by 1,705 places | | Weight | #5,156 | #7,900 | 14,129 | DH132H10-740 leads by 2,744 places | | Warranty | #21 | #21 | 14,129 | Tied - the same position in the database | | Overall | #185 | #7,649 | 14,129 | DH132H10-740 leads by 7,464 places | ## Questions ### Which panel is better: Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 or Runergy HY-DH96N11B-465? According to our database: **Runergy HY-DH132H10-740** has higher module efficiency (**23.80%** vs **23.30%**); **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-DH96N11B-465? **Runergy HY-DH132H10-740** has a module efficiency of **23.80%**, while **Runergy HY-DH96N11B-465** is **23.30%**. 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-DH96N11B-465? **Runergy HY-DH132H10-740** uses **HJT** cells; **Runergy HY-DH96N11B-465** 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-DH96N11B-465? **Runergy HY-DH132H10-740** has a **30 years** power warranty; **Runergy HY-DH96N11B-465** 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-DH96N11B-465 bifacial panels? **Runergy HY-DH132H10-740** is bifacial (captures light from both faces); **Runergy HY-DH96N11B-465** is monofacial. Bifacial panels work best on ground mounts or raised structures with a light-coloured surface underneath. ## Related comparisons - [Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-740](https://comparepv.com/compare/runergy-hy-dh132h10-740/runergy-hy-dh132h10-plus-740) - One difference: dimensions - [Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-735](https://comparepv.com/compare/runergy-hy-dh132h10-740/runergy-hy-dh132h10-735) - The same specification on paper - [Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-735](https://comparepv.com/compare/runergy-hy-dh132h10-740/runergy-hy-dh132h10-plus-735) - One difference: dimensions - [Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-730](https://comparepv.com/compare/runergy-hy-dh132h10-740/runergy-hy-dh132h10-730) - 3 differences, the largest is module efficiency - [Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 vs Runergy HY-DH132N10-730](https://comparepv.com/compare/runergy-hy-dh132h10-740/runergy-hy-dh132n10-730) - 9 differences, the largest is temperature coefficient - [Runergy HY-DH132H10-740 vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-730](https://comparepv.com/compare/runergy-hy-dh132h10-740/runergy-hy-dh132h10-plus-730) - 4 differences, the largest is module efficiency --- Source: https://comparepv.com/compare/runergy-hy-dh132h10-740/runergy-hy-dh96n11b-465 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.