Skip to main content
DH132H10-Plus-735 vs DH132N10-725 11 of 19 identical Swap Change panels

Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-735 vs Runergy HY-DH132N10-725

Runergy
HY-DH132H10-Plus-735
735 Wp 23.70 % HJT Bifacial
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
VS
Runergy
HY-DH132N10-725
725 Wp 23.30 % N-type Bifacial
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
The verdict

DH132H10-Plus-735 leads on the differences that matter

The largest is temperature coefficient: 0.030 %/°C better in heat. 11 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.

See all 8 differences
How alike are they
11 of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
identical differs
01

What actually differs

8 of 19 parameters
Parameter DH132H10-Plus-735 DH132N10-725 Difference
Temperature coefficient -0.260 %/°C -0.290 %/°C 0.030 %/°C better in heat
Module efficiency 23.70 % 23.30 % 0.40 pp more efficient
Cell technology HJT N-type HJT vs N-type
Power density 236.6 Wp/m² 233.4 Wp/m² 3.2 Wp/m² higher
Rated power 735 Wp 725 Wp 10 W more power
Open-circuit voltage 51.19 V 49.58 V 1.61 V apart
Short-circuit current 17.85 A 18.54 A 0.69 A apart
Voltage at max power 43.11 V 41.48 V 1.63 V apart
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-Plus-735
24,737 kWh
DH132N10-725
24,325 kWh
Lifetime gap
412 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario DH132H10-Plus-735 DH132N10-725
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 735 W 725 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.7% of rated power 706 W 693 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.3% of rated power 678 W 662 W
Hot roof 70 °C 87.0% of rated power 649 W 630 W
03

Full specification

Parameter DH132H10-Plus-735 DH132N10-725 Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 735 Wp 725 Wp +10 W for DH132H10-Plus-735
Module efficiency 23.70 % 23.30 % +0.40 pp for DH132H10-Plus-735
Power density 236.6 Wp/m² 233.4 Wp/m² +3.2 Wp/m² for DH132H10-Plus-735
Open-circuit voltage 51.19 V 49.58 V 1.61 V apart
Voltage at max power 43.11 V 41.48 V 1.63 V apart
Short-circuit current 17.85 A 18.54 A 0.69 A apart
Current at max power 17.05 A 17.48 A Effectively the same
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.260 %/°C -0.290 %/°C +0.030 %/°C for DH132H10-Plus-735
Mechanical
Dimensions 2384x1303x35 mm 2384x1303x35 mm Same
Module area 3.106 m² 3.106 m² Same
Weight 38.5 kg 38.5 kg Same
Weight per kWp 52.4 kg/kWp 53.1 kg/kWp Effectively the same
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 132 132 Same
Bifacial Yes Yes Same
04

Against the whole database

14,129 panels
Efficiency
#549 vs #1,057
DH132H10-Plus-735 leads by 508 places
Power density
#614 vs #974
DH132H10-Plus-735 leads by 360 places
Heat behaviour
#515 vs #2,220
DH132H10-Plus-735 leads by 1,705 places
Weight
#5,904 vs #6,940
DH132H10-Plus-735 leads by 1,036 places
Warranty
#21 vs #21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#239 vs #438
DH132H10-Plus-735 leads by 199 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-735 vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-740
The same specification on paper
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-735 vs Runergy HY-DH132N10-730
6 differences, the largest is temperature coefficient
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-735 vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-730
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-735 vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-725
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-735 vs Runergy HY-DH132N10-720
8 differences, the largest is temperature coefficient
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-735 vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-720
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06

Written summary

07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-735 or Runergy HY-DH132N10-725?
According to our database: Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-735 has higher module efficiency (23.70% vs 23.30%); Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-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-Plus-735 and Runergy HY-DH132N10-725?
Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-735 has a module efficiency of 23.70%, while Runergy HY-DH132N10-725 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-Plus-735 use vs Runergy HY-DH132N10-725?
Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-735 uses HJT cells; Runergy HY-DH132N10-725 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-Plus-735 and Runergy HY-DH132N10-725?
Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-735 has a 30 years power warranty; Runergy HY-DH132N10-725 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-Plus-735 and Runergy HY-DH132N10-725 bifacial panels?
Both Runergy HY-DH132H10-Plus-735 and Runergy HY-DH132N10-725 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.