Skip to main content
DH132N10-730 vs DH132H10-725 11 of 19 identical Swap Change panels

Runergy HY-DH132N10-730 vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-725

Runergy
HY-DH132N10-730
730 Wp 23.50 % N-type Bifacial
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
VS
Runergy
HY-DH132H10-725
725 Wp 23.30 % HJT Bifacial
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
The verdict

DH132H10-725 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 DH132N10-730 DH132H10-725 Difference
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.260 %/°C 0.030 %/°C better in heat
Cell technology N-type HJT N-type vs HJT
Module efficiency 23.50 % 23.30 % 0.20 pp more efficient
Short-circuit current 18.59 A 17.73 A 0.86 A apart
Open-circuit voltage 49.77 V 50.89 V 1.12 V apart
Dimensions 2384x1303x35 mm 2384x1303x33 mm 2384x1303x35 mm vs 2384x1303x33 mm
Current at max power 17.52 A 16.93 A 0.59 A apart
Voltage at max power 41.67 V 42.83 V 1.16 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
DH132N10-730
24,493 kWh
DH132H10-725
24,401 kWh
Lifetime gap
92 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario DH132N10-730 DH132H10-725
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 730 W 725 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.7% of rated power 698 W 697 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.3% of rated power 666 W 668 W
Hot roof 70 °C 87.0% of rated power 635 W 640 W
03

Full specification

Parameter DH132N10-730 DH132H10-725 Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 730 Wp 725 Wp Effectively the same
Module efficiency 23.50 % 23.30 % +0.20 pp for DH132N10-730
Power density 235.0 Wp/m² 233.4 Wp/m² Effectively the same
Open-circuit voltage 49.77 V 50.89 V 1.12 V apart
Voltage at max power 41.67 V 42.83 V 1.16 V apart
Short-circuit current 18.59 A 17.73 A 0.86 A apart
Current at max power 17.52 A 16.93 A 0.59 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.260 %/°C +0.030 %/°C for DH132H10-725
Mechanical
Dimensions 2384x1303x35 mm 2384x1303x33 mm 2384x1303x35 mm vs 2384x1303x33 mm
Module area 3.106 m² 3.106 m² Same
Weight 38.5 kg 38.3 kg Effectively the same
Weight per kWp 52.7 kg/kWp 52.8 kg/kWp Effectively the same
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty 12 yrs 12 yrs Same
Performance warranty 30 yrs 30 yrs Same
Annual degradation 0.40 %/yr 0.38 %/yr Effectively the same
Technology
Cell technology N-type HJT N-type vs HJT
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 132 132 Same
Bifacial Yes Yes Same
04

Against the whole database

14,129 panels
Efficiency
#749 vs #1,057
DH132N10-730 leads by 308 places
Power density
#836 vs #974
DH132N10-730 leads by 138 places
Heat behaviour
#2,220 vs #515
DH132H10-725 leads by 1,705 places
Weight
#6,450 vs #6,570
DH132N10-730 leads by 120 places
Warranty
#21 vs #21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#326 vs #431
DH132N10-730 leads by 105 places
05

More useful comparisons

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

Written summary

07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: Runergy HY-DH132N10-730 or Runergy HY-DH132H10-725?
According to our database: Runergy HY-DH132N10-730 has higher module efficiency (23.50% vs 23.30%); Runergy HY-DH132H10-725 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-DH132N10-730 and Runergy HY-DH132H10-725?
Runergy HY-DH132N10-730 has a module efficiency of 23.50%, while Runergy HY-DH132H10-725 is 23.30%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Runergy HY-DH132N10-730 use vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-725?
Runergy HY-DH132N10-730 uses N-type cells; Runergy HY-DH132H10-725 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-DH132N10-730 and Runergy HY-DH132H10-725?
Runergy HY-DH132N10-730 has a 30 years power warranty; Runergy HY-DH132H10-725 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-DH132N10-730 and Runergy HY-DH132H10-725 bifacial panels?
Both Runergy HY-DH132N10-730 and Runergy HY-DH132H10-725 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.