Skip to main content
570 XM+ BIFACIAL vs 520-XM-BIFACIAL 10 of 18 identical Swap Change panels

Silfab SIL-570 XM+ BIFACIAL vs Silfab SIL-520-XM-BIFACIAL

Silfab
SIL-570 XM+ BIFACIAL
570 Wp 22.10 % N-type Bifacial Incomplete
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
VS
Silfab
SIL-520-XM-BIFACIAL
520 Wp 21.90 % N-type Bifacial
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
The verdict

570 XM+ BIFACIAL leads on the differences that matter

The largest is rated power: 50 W more power. 10 of 18 comparable parameters are identical, with 1 more left out because at least one datasheet does not publish it.

See all 8 differences
How alike are they
10 of 18 comparable
parameters are identical
identical differs not published
01

What actually differs

8 of 18 parameters
Parameter 570 XM+ BIFACIAL 520-XM-BIFACIAL Difference
Rated power 570 Wp 520 Wp 50 W more power
Open-circuit voltage 52.03 V 47.52 V 4.51 V apart
Module area 2.581 m² 2.377 m² 0.204 m² apart
Weight 28.5 kg 26.2 kg 2.3 kg lighter
Module efficiency 22.10 % 21.90 % 0.20 pp more efficient
Cell count 144 132 12 cells apart
Voltage at max power 43.74 V 40.48 V 3.26 V apart
Dimensions 2278x1133x35 mm 2098x1133x35 mm 2278x1133x35 mm vs 2098x1133x35 mm
02

What it means on a roof

Thirty years of production
Declared first-year losses, with 0.40% a year afterwards assumed for both panels, at 1,200 kWh/kWp a year
Same temp coeff. for both panels (-0.290 %/°C), so a warmer roof scales both curves by the same factor: the totals fall together and neither panel gains on the other.
570 XM+ BIFACIAL
18,919 kWh
520-XM-BIFACIAL
17,260 kWh
Lifetime gap
1,659 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario 570 XM+ BIFACIAL 520-XM-BIFACIAL
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 570 W 520 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.7% of rated power 545 W 497 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.3% of rated power 520 W 475 W
Hot roof 70 °C 87.0% of rated power 496 W 452 W
03

Full specification

Parameter 570 XM+ BIFACIAL 520-XM-BIFACIAL Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 570 Wp 520 Wp +50 W for 570 XM+ BIFACIAL
Module efficiency 22.10 % 21.90 % +0.20 pp for 570 XM+ BIFACIAL
Power density 220.8 Wp/m² 218.8 Wp/m² Effectively the same
Open-circuit voltage 52.03 V 47.52 V 4.51 V apart
Voltage at max power 43.74 V 40.48 V 3.26 V apart
Short-circuit current 13.79 A 13.65 A Effectively the same
Current at max power 13.03 A 12.85 A Effectively the same
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.290 %/°C Same
Mechanical
Dimensions 2278x1133x35 mm 2098x1133x35 mm 2278x1133x35 mm vs 2098x1133x35 mm
Module area 2.581 m² 2.377 m² 0.204 m² apart
Weight 28.5 kg 26.2 kg -2.3 kg for 520-XM-BIFACIAL
Weight per kWp 50.0 kg/kWp 50.4 kg/kWp Effectively the same
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty 25 yrs 25 yrs Same
Performance warranty 30 yrs 30 yrs Same
Annual degradation - 0.30 %/yr Not published by Silfab
Technology
Cell technology N-type N-type Same
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 144 132 12 cells apart
Bifacial Yes Yes Same
04

Against the whole database

14,005 panels
Efficiency
#6,012 vs #6,783
570 XM+ BIFACIAL leads by 771 places
Power density
#6,015 vs #6,837
570 XM+ BIFACIAL leads by 822 places
Heat behaviour
#2,165 vs #2,165
Tied - the same position in the database
Weight
#3,575 vs #3,761
570 XM+ BIFACIAL leads by 186 places
Warranty
#21 vs #21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#2,566 vs #4,485
570 XM+ BIFACIAL leads by 1,919 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
Silfab
Silfab SIL-570 XM+ BIFACIAL vs Silfab SIL-570 XM+
The same specification on paper
Same series, other bin
Silfab
Silfab SIL-520-XM-BIFACIAL vs Silfab SIL-580-XM+-BIFACIAL
9 differences, the largest is rated power
Same series, other bin
Silfab
Silfab SIL-520-XM-BIFACIAL vs Silfab SIL-540-XM-BIFACIAL
4 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Silfab
Silfab SIL-520-XM-BIFACIAL vs Silfab SIL-520 XM BIFACIAL
The same specification on paper
Same manufacturer
Silfab
Silfab SIL-570 XM+ BIFACIAL vs Silfab SIL-640 XL
10 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same manufacturer
Silfab
Silfab SIL-570 XM+ BIFACIAL vs Silfab SIL-630 XL
10 differences, the largest is rated power
06

Written summary

07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: Silfab SIL-570 XM+ BIFACIAL or Silfab SIL-520-XM-BIFACIAL?
According to our database: Silfab SIL-570 XM+ BIFACIAL has higher module efficiency (22.10% vs 21.90%). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of Silfab SIL-570 XM+ BIFACIAL and Silfab SIL-520-XM-BIFACIAL?
Silfab SIL-570 XM+ BIFACIAL has a module efficiency of 22.10%, while Silfab SIL-520-XM-BIFACIAL is 21.90%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Silfab SIL-570 XM+ BIFACIAL use vs Silfab SIL-520-XM-BIFACIAL?
Silfab SIL-570 XM+ BIFACIAL uses N-type cells; Silfab SIL-520-XM-BIFACIAL 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-570 XM+ BIFACIAL and Silfab SIL-520-XM-BIFACIAL?
Silfab SIL-570 XM+ BIFACIAL has a 30 years power warranty; Silfab SIL-520-XM-BIFACIAL 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 Silfab SIL-570 XM+ BIFACIAL and Silfab SIL-520-XM-BIFACIAL bifacial panels?
Both Silfab SIL-570 XM+ BIFACIAL and Silfab SIL-520-XM-BIFACIAL 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 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.