Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC vs Silfab SIL-430 QD
VS
The verdict
430 QD leads on the differences that matter
The largest is module efficiency: 3.40 pp more efficient. 5 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.
See all 14 differencesHow alike are they
5
of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
parameters are identical
identical
differs
01
14 of 19 parameters
What actually differs
Parameter
370 NT mono PERC
430 QD
Difference
Module efficiency
18.70 %
22.10 %
3.40 pp more efficient
Temperature coefficient
-0.380 %/°C
-0.290 %/°C
0.090 %/°C better in heat
Rated power
370 Wp
430 Wp
60 W more power
Power density
186.9 Wp/m²
220.5 Wp/m²
33.7 Wp/m² higher
Annual degradation
0.50 %/yr
0.30 %/yr
0.20 %/yr slower
Weight per kWp
58.1 kg/kWp
48.8 kg/kWp
9.3 kg/kWp lighter
Open-circuit voltage
47.50 V
38.91 V
8.59 V apart
Short-circuit current
9.90 A
13.87 A
3.97 A apart
Cell technology
PERC
N-type
PERC vs N-type
Voltage at max power
38.10 V
33.25 V
4.85 V apart
Current at max power
9.70 A
12.93 A
3.23 A apart
Cell count
72
108
36 cells apart
Module area
1.980 m²
1.950 m²
0.030 m² apart
Dimensions
1992x994x38 mm
1721x1133x35 mm
1992x994x38 mm vs 1721x1133x35 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
370 NT mono PERC
11,968 kWh
430 QD
14,497 kWh
Lifetime gap
2,529 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario
370 NT mono PERC
430 QD
Standard test conditions
25 °C
100.0% of rated power
370 W
430 W
Cool, bright day
40 °C
94.3% of rated power
349 W
411 W
Typical summer roof
55 °C
88.6% of rated power
328 W
393 W
Hot roof
70 °C
82.9% of rated power
307 W
374 W
03
Full specification
Parameter
370 NT mono PERC
430 QD
Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power
370 Wp
430 Wp
+60 W for 430 QD
Module efficiency
18.70 %
22.10 %
+3.40 pp for 430 QD
Power density
186.9 Wp/m²
220.5 Wp/m²
+33.7 Wp/m² for 430 QD
Open-circuit voltage
47.50 V
38.91 V
8.59 V apart
Voltage at max power
38.10 V
33.25 V
4.85 V apart
Short-circuit current
9.90 A
13.87 A
3.97 A apart
Current at max power
9.70 A
12.93 A
3.23 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient
-0.380 %/°C
-0.290 %/°C
+0.090 %/°C for 430 QD
Mechanical
Dimensions
1992x994x38 mm
1721x1133x35 mm
1992x994x38 mm vs 1721x1133x35 mm
Module area
1.980 m²
1.950 m²
0.030 m² apart
Weight
21.5 kg
21.0 kg
Effectively the same
Weight per kWp
58.1 kg/kWp
48.8 kg/kWp
-9.3 kg/kWp for 430 QD
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty
25 yrs
25 yrs
Same
Performance warranty
30 yrs
30 yrs
Same
Annual degradation
0.50 %/yr
0.30 %/yr
-0.20 %/yr for 430 QD
Technology
Cell technology
PERC
N-type
PERC vs N-type
Cell type
Monocrystalline
Monocrystalline
Same
Cell count
72
108
36 cells apart
Bifacial
No
No
Same
04
14,005 panels
Against the whole database
Efficiency
#13,058
vs
#6,012
430 QD leads by 7,046 places
Power density
#13,048
vs
#6,191
430 QD leads by 6,857 places
Heat behaviour
#13,397
vs
#2,165
430 QD leads by 11,232 places
Weight
#11,565
vs
#2,492
430 QD leads by 9,073 places
Warranty
#21
vs
#21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#11,845
vs
#7,342
430 QD leads by 4,503 places
05
Open the full database
More useful comparisons
Same series, other bin
Silfab
Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC vs Silfab SIL-440 QD
14 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Silfab
Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC vs Silfab SIL-430-QD
14 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Silfab
Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC vs Silfab SIL-420 QD
14 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same manufacturer
Silfab
Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC vs Silfab SIL-640 XL
16 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same manufacturer
Silfab
Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC vs Silfab SIL-630 XL
16 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same manufacturer
Silfab
Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC vs Silfab SIL-620 XL
16 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06
Written summary
Checking cache...
07
Questions about this pairing
Which panel is better: Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC or Silfab SIL-430 QD?
According to our database: Silfab SIL-430 QD has higher module efficiency (22.10% vs 18.70%); Silfab SIL-430 QD tolerates heat better (temp coeff -0.290%/°C vs -0.380%/°C). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC and Silfab SIL-430 QD?
Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC has a module efficiency of 18.70%, while Silfab SIL-430 QD is 22.10%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC use vs Silfab SIL-430 QD?
Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC uses PERC cells; Silfab SIL-430 QD 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 Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC and Silfab SIL-430 QD?
Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC has a 30 years power warranty; Silfab SIL-430 QD 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.
Shop prices: See 2 Silfab 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.