Skip to main content
GSD8K66H-740WT vs CME-132BDS-730 6 of 19 identical Swap Change panels

Sharp GSD8K66H-740WT vs AE Solar CME-132BDS-730

Sharp GSD8K66H-740WT
Sharp
GSD8K66H-740WT
740 Wp 23.82 % HJT Bifacial
VS
AE Solar CME-132BDS-730
CME-132BDS-730
730 Wp 23.53 % TOPCon Bifacial
The verdict

13 differences, and they point both ways

The largest is temperature coefficient: 0.030 %/°C better in heat. 6 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.

See all 13 differences
How alike are they
6 of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
identical differs
01

What actually differs

13 of 19 parameters
Parameter GSD8K66H-740WT CME-132BDS-730 Difference
Temperature coefficient -0.260 %/°C -0.290 %/°C 0.030 %/°C better in heat
Product warranty 25 yrs 30 yrs 5 yrs longer
Module efficiency 23.82 % 23.53 % 0.29 pp more efficient
Weight 39.0 kg 37.0 kg 2.0 kg lighter
Cell technology HJT TOPCon HJT vs TOPCon
Open-circuit voltage 51.70 V 49.50 V 2.20 V apart
Annual degradation 0.35 %/yr 0.40 %/yr 0.05 %/yr slower
Rated power 740 Wp 730 Wp 10 W more power
Weight per kWp 52.7 kg/kWp 50.7 kg/kWp 2.0 kg/kWp lighter
Short-circuit current 17.76 A 18.49 A 0.73 A apart
Voltage at max power 43.80 V 41.70 V 2.10 V apart
Dimensions 2384x1303x35 mm 2383x1302x30 mm 2384x1303x35 mm vs 2383x1302x30 mm
Current at max power 16.91 A 17.51 A 0.60 A 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
GSD8K66H-740WT
25,022 kWh
CME-132BDS-730
24,493 kWh
Lifetime gap
529 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario GSD8K66H-740WT CME-132BDS-730
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 740 W 730 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.7% of rated power 711 W 698 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.3% of rated power 682 W 666 W
Hot roof 70 °C 87.0% of rated power 653 W 635 W
03

Full specification

Parameter GSD8K66H-740WT CME-132BDS-730 Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 740 Wp 730 Wp +10 W for GSD8K66H-740WT
Module efficiency 23.82 % 23.53 % +0.29 pp for GSD8K66H-740WT
Power density 238.2 Wp/m² 235.3 Wp/m² Effectively the same
Open-circuit voltage 51.70 V 49.50 V 2.20 V apart
Voltage at max power 43.80 V 41.70 V 2.10 V apart
Short-circuit current 17.76 A 18.49 A 0.73 A apart
Current at max power 16.91 A 17.51 A 0.60 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.260 %/°C -0.290 %/°C +0.030 %/°C for GSD8K66H-740WT
Mechanical
Dimensions 2384x1303x35 mm 2383x1302x30 mm 2384x1303x35 mm vs 2383x1302x30 mm
Module area 3.106 m² 3.103 m² Effectively the same
Weight 39.0 kg 37.0 kg -2.0 kg for CME-132BDS-730
Weight per kWp 52.7 kg/kWp 50.7 kg/kWp -2.0 kg/kWp for CME-132BDS-730
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty 25 yrs 30 yrs +5 yrs for CME-132BDS-730
Performance warranty 30 yrs 30 yrs Same
Annual degradation 0.35 %/yr 0.40 %/yr -0.05 %/yr for GSD8K66H-740WT
Technology
Cell technology HJT TOPCon HJT vs TOPCon
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 132 132 Same
Bifacial Yes Yes Same
04

Against the whole database

14,005 panels
Efficiency
#418 vs #674
GSD8K66H-740WT leads by 256 places
Power density
#431 vs #672
GSD8K66H-740WT leads by 241 places
Heat behaviour
#511 vs #2,165
GSD8K66H-740WT leads by 1,654 places
Weight
#6,344 vs #4,111
CME-132BDS-730 leads by 2,233 places
Warranty
#21 vs #21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#12 vs #7
CME-132BDS-730 leads by 5 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
Sharp
Sharp GSD8K66H-740WT vs Sharp GSD8K66H-735WT
The same specification on paper
Same series, other bin
Sharp
Sharp GSD8K66H-740WT vs Sharp GSD8K66H-730WT
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Sharp
Sharp GSD8K66H-740WT vs Sharp GSD8K66H-725WT
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Sharp
Sharp GSD8K66H-740WT vs Sharp GSD8K66H-720WT
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Sharp
Sharp GSD8K66H-740WT vs Sharp GSD8K66H-715WT
5 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Sharp
Sharp GSD8K66H-740WT vs Sharp GSD8K66H-710WT
6 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06

Written summary

Checking cache...
07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: Sharp GSD8K66H-740WT or AE Solar CME-132BDS-730?
According to our database: Sharp GSD8K66H-740WT has higher module efficiency (23.82% vs 23.53%); Sharp GSD8K66H-740WT 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 Sharp GSD8K66H-740WT and AE Solar CME-132BDS-730?
Sharp GSD8K66H-740WT has a module efficiency of 23.82%, while AE Solar CME-132BDS-730 is 23.53%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Sharp GSD8K66H-740WT use vs AE Solar CME-132BDS-730?
Sharp GSD8K66H-740WT uses HJT cells; AE Solar CME-132BDS-730 uses TOPCon. 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 Sharp GSD8K66H-740WT and AE Solar CME-132BDS-730?
Sharp GSD8K66H-740WT has a 30 years power warranty; AE Solar CME-132BDS-730 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 Sharp GSD8K66H-740WT and AE Solar CME-132BDS-730 bifacial panels?
Both Sharp GSD8K66H-740WT and AE Solar CME-132BDS-730 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.
Compare Sharp and AE Solar as manufacturers Portfolio, efficiency, cell technologies and warranty terms

Shop prices: See 6 Sharp offers · See 4 AE Solar 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.