Skip to main content
TWMNH-48HC vs THC G12-66 Bifacial 7 of 18 identical Swap Change panels

Tongwei TWMNH-48HC vs Tongwei THC G12-66 Bifacial

TWMNH-48HC
450 Wp 16.66 % TOPCon Bifacial Incomplete
VS
THC G12-66 Bifacial
740 Wp 23.80 % TOPCon Bifacial Incomplete
The verdict

THC G12-66 Bifacial leads on the differences that matter

The largest is module efficiency: 7.14 pp more efficient. 7 of 18 comparable parameters are identical, with 1 more left out because at least one datasheet does not publish it.

See all 11 differences
How alike are they
7 of 18 comparable
parameters are identical
identical differs not published
01

What actually differs

11 of 18 parameters
Parameter TWMNH-48HC THC G12-66 Bifacial Difference
Module efficiency 16.66 % 23.80 % 7.14 pp more efficient
Rated power 450 Wp 740 Wp 290 W more power
Power density 166.6 Wp/m² 238.2 Wp/m² 71.6 Wp/m² higher
Weight 29.0 kg 37.0 kg 8.0 kg lighter
Weight per kWp 64.4 kg/kWp 50.0 kg/kWp 14.4 kg/kWp lighter
Open-circuit voltage 35.03 V 50.62 V 15.59 V apart
Short-circuit current 16.05 A 18.47 A 2.42 A apart
Module area 2.701 m² 3.106 m² 0.405 m² apart
Voltage at max power 30.08 V 42.32 V 12.24 V apart
Current at max power 14.97 A 17.49 A 2.52 A apart
Dimensions 2382x1134x30 mm 2384x1303x33 mm 2382x1134x30 mm vs 2384x1303x33 mm
02

What it means on a roof

Thirty years of production
A 1.0% first-year loss then 0.40% a year, assumed for both panels, at 1,200 kWh/kWp a year
Same temp coeff. for both panels (-0.280 %/°C), so a warmer roof scales both curves by the same factor: the totals fall together and neither panel gains on the other.
TWMNH-48HC
15,098 kWh
THC G12-66 Bifacial
24,828 kWh
Lifetime gap
9,730 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario TWMNH-48HC THC G12-66 Bifacial
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 450 W 740 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.8% of rated power 431 W 709 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.6% of rated power 412 W 678 W
Hot roof 70 °C 87.4% of rated power 393 W 647 W
03

Full specification

Parameter TWMNH-48HC THC G12-66 Bifacial Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 450 Wp 740 Wp +290 W for THC G12-66 Bifacial
Module efficiency 16.66 % 23.80 % +7.14 pp for THC G12-66 Bifacial
Power density 166.6 Wp/m² 238.2 Wp/m² +71.6 Wp/m² for THC G12-66 Bifacial
Open-circuit voltage 35.03 V 50.62 V 15.59 V apart
Voltage at max power 30.08 V 42.32 V 12.24 V apart
Short-circuit current 16.05 A 18.47 A 2.42 A apart
Current at max power 14.97 A 17.49 A 2.52 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.280 %/°C -0.280 %/°C Same
Mechanical
Dimensions 2382x1134x30 mm 2384x1303x33 mm 2382x1134x30 mm vs 2384x1303x33 mm
Module area 2.701 m² 3.106 m² 0.405 m² apart
Weight 29.0 kg 37.0 kg -8.0 kg for TWMNH-48HC
Weight per kWp 64.4 kg/kWp 50.0 kg/kWp -14.4 kg/kWp for THC G12-66 Bifacial
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty 15 yrs 15 yrs Same
Performance warranty 30 yrs 30 yrs Same
Annual degradation - - Neither datasheet publishes this
Technology
Cell technology TOPCon TOPCon Same
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 132 132 Same
Bifacial Yes Yes Same
04

Against the whole database

14,005 panels
Efficiency
#13,534 vs #433
THC G12-66 Bifacial leads by 13,101 places
Power density
#13,523 vs #431
THC G12-66 Bifacial leads by 13,092 places
Heat behaviour
#1,309 vs #1,309
Tied - the same position in the database
Weight
#12,985 vs #3,317
THC G12-66 Bifacial leads by 9,668 places
Warranty
#21 vs #21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#12,508 vs #130
THC G12-66 Bifacial leads by 12,378 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
Tongwei TWMNH-48HC vs Tongwei TWMNF-66HD
11 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Tongwei TWMNH-48HC vs Tongwei TWMNH-66HS
6 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Tongwei TWMNH-48HC vs Tongwei TWMNH-66HD
6 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Tongwei TWMNH-48HC vs Tongwei TWMNH-54HD
6 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same manufacturer
Tongwei TWMNH-48HC vs Tongwei TWMNF-66HD750
12 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same manufacturer
Tongwei TWMNH-48HC vs Tongwei TWMNF-66HD745
12 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06

Written summary

Checking cache...
07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: Tongwei TWMNH-48HC or Tongwei THC G12-66 Bifacial?
According to our database: Tongwei THC G12-66 Bifacial has higher module efficiency (23.80% vs 16.66%). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of Tongwei TWMNH-48HC and Tongwei THC G12-66 Bifacial?
Tongwei TWMNH-48HC has a module efficiency of 16.66%, while Tongwei THC G12-66 Bifacial is 23.80%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Tongwei TWMNH-48HC use vs Tongwei THC G12-66 Bifacial?
Tongwei TWMNH-48HC uses TOPCon cells; Tongwei THC G12-66 Bifacial 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 Tongwei TWMNH-48HC and Tongwei THC G12-66 Bifacial?
Tongwei TWMNH-48HC has a 30 years power warranty; Tongwei THC G12-66 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 Tongwei TWMNH-48HC and Tongwei THC G12-66 Bifacial bifacial panels?
Both Tongwei TWMNH-48HC and Tongwei THC G12-66 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 71 Tongwei 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.