Skip to main content
DH96N11B-455 vs DH132H10-735 4 of 19 identical Swap Change panels

Runergy HY-DH96N11B-455 vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-735

Runergy HY-DH96N11B-455
Runergy
HY-DH96N11B-455
455 Wp 22.80 % N-type
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
VS
Runergy
HY-DH132H10-735
735 Wp 23.70 % HJT Bifacial
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
The verdict

DH132H10-735 leads on the differences that matter

The largest is module efficiency: 0.90 pp more efficient. 4 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.

See all 15 differences
How alike are they
4 of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
identical differs
01

What actually differs

15 of 19 parameters
Parameter DH96N11B-455 DH132H10-735 Difference
Module efficiency 22.80 % 23.70 % 0.90 pp more efficient
Rated power 455 Wp 735 Wp 280 W more power
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.260 %/°C 0.030 %/°C better in heat
Weight 25.0 kg 38.3 kg 13.3 kg lighter
Power density 227.7 Wp/m² 236.6 Wp/m² 8.9 Wp/m² higher
Open-circuit voltage 35.39 V 51.19 V 15.80 V apart
Module area 1.998 m² 3.106 m² 1.108 m² apart
Short-circuit current 16.15 A 17.85 A 1.70 A apart
Cell technology N-type HJT N-type vs HJT
Weight per kWp 54.9 kg/kWp 52.1 kg/kWp 2.8 kg/kWp lighter
Voltage at max power 29.57 V 43.11 V 13.54 V apart
Cell count 96 132 36 cells apart
Current at max power 15.39 A 17.05 A 1.66 A apart
Bifacial No Yes No vs Yes
Dimensions 1762x1134x30 mm 2384x1303x33 mm 1762x1134x30 mm vs 2384x1303x33 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
DH96N11B-455
15,266 kWh
DH132H10-735
24,737 kWh
Lifetime gap
9,471 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario DH96N11B-455 DH132H10-735
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 455 W 735 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.7% of rated power 435 W 706 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.3% of rated power 415 W 678 W
Hot roof 70 °C 87.0% of rated power 396 W 649 W
03

Full specification

Parameter DH96N11B-455 DH132H10-735 Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 455 Wp 735 Wp +280 W for DH132H10-735
Module efficiency 22.80 % 23.70 % +0.90 pp for DH132H10-735
Power density 227.7 Wp/m² 236.6 Wp/m² +8.9 Wp/m² for DH132H10-735
Open-circuit voltage 35.39 V 51.19 V 15.80 V apart
Voltage at max power 29.57 V 43.11 V 13.54 V apart
Short-circuit current 16.15 A 17.85 A 1.70 A apart
Current at max power 15.39 A 17.05 A 1.66 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.260 %/°C +0.030 %/°C for DH132H10-735
Mechanical
Dimensions 1762x1134x30 mm 2384x1303x33 mm 1762x1134x30 mm vs 2384x1303x33 mm
Module area 1.998 m² 3.106 m² 1.108 m² apart
Weight 25.0 kg 38.3 kg -13.3 kg for DH96N11B-455
Weight per kWp 54.9 kg/kWp 52.1 kg/kWp -2.8 kg/kWp for DH132H10-735
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty 12 yrs 12 yrs Same
Performance warranty 30 yrs 30 yrs Same
Annual degradation 0.40 %/yr 0.38 %/yr Effectively the same
Technology
Cell technology N-type HJT N-type vs HJT
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 96 132 36 cells apart
Bifacial No Yes No vs Yes
04

Against the whole database

14,129 panels
Efficiency
#2,769 vs #549
DH132H10-735 leads by 2,220 places
Power density
#2,943 vs #614
DH132H10-735 leads by 2,329 places
Heat behaviour
#2,220 vs #515
DH132H10-735 leads by 1,705 places
Weight
#9,410 vs #5,616
DH132H10-735 leads by 3,794 places
Warranty
#21 vs #21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#8,703 vs #234
DH132H10-735 leads by 8,469 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH96N11B-455 vs Runergy HY-DH96N11B-465
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH96N11B-455 vs Runergy HY-DH96N11B-460
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH96N11B-455 vs Runergy HY-DH96N11B-450
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Runergy
Runergy HY-DH96N11B-455 vs Runergy HY-DH96N11B-445
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
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
06

Written summary

07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: Runergy HY-DH96N11B-455 or Runergy HY-DH132H10-735?
According to our database: Runergy HY-DH132H10-735 has higher module efficiency (23.70% vs 22.80%); 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-DH96N11B-455 and Runergy HY-DH132H10-735?
Runergy HY-DH96N11B-455 has a module efficiency of 22.80%, while Runergy HY-DH132H10-735 is 23.70%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Runergy HY-DH96N11B-455 use vs Runergy HY-DH132H10-735?
Runergy HY-DH96N11B-455 uses N-type cells; Runergy HY-DH132H10-735 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-DH96N11B-455 and Runergy HY-DH132H10-735?
Runergy HY-DH96N11B-455 has a 30 years power warranty; Runergy HY-DH132H10-735 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-DH96N11B-455 and Runergy HY-DH132H10-735 bifacial panels?
Runergy HY-DH132H10-735 is bifacial (captures light from both faces); Runergy HY-DH96N11B-455 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.