Skip to main content
NE21 700W vs NEG21C.20Q-760 6 of 19 identical Swap Change panels

Trina Solar TSM-NE21 700W vs Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-760

Trina Solar TSM-NE21 700W
TSM-NE21 700W
700 Wp 22.50 % TOPCon
VS
Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-760
TSM-NEG21C.20Q-760
760 Wp 24.50 % TOPCon Bifacial
The verdict

NEG21C.20Q-760 leads on the differences that matter

The largest is module efficiency: 2.00 pp more efficient. 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 NE21 700W NEG21C.20Q-760 Difference
Module efficiency 22.50 % 24.50 % 2.00 pp more efficient
Rated power 700 Wp 760 Wp 60 W more power
Power density 225.3 Wp/m² 244.7 Wp/m² 19.3 Wp/m² higher
Performance warranty 25 yrs 30 yrs 5 yrs longer
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.260 %/°C 0.030 %/°C better in heat
Weight 32.9 kg 38.3 kg 5.4 kg lighter
Weight per kWp 47.0 kg/kWp 50.4 kg/kWp 3.4 kg/kWp lighter
Open-circuit voltage 48.60 V 50.90 V 2.30 V apart
Annual degradation 0.40 %/yr 0.35 %/yr 0.05 %/yr slower
Cell count 132 264 132 cells apart
Bifacial No Yes No vs Yes
Voltage at max power 40.50 V 42.90 V 2.40 V apart
Short-circuit current 18.32 A 18.85 A 0.53 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
NE21 700W
23,486 kWh
NEG21C.20Q-760
25,698 kWh
Lifetime gap
2,212 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario NE21 700W NEG21C.20Q-760
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 700 W 760 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.7% of rated power 670 W 730 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.3% of rated power 639 W 701 W
Hot roof 70 °C 87.0% of rated power 609 W 671 W
03

Full specification

Parameter NE21 700W NEG21C.20Q-760 Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 700 Wp 760 Wp +60 W for NEG21C.20Q-760
Module efficiency 22.50 % 24.50 % +2.00 pp for NEG21C.20Q-760
Power density 225.3 Wp/m² 244.7 Wp/m² +19.3 Wp/m² for NEG21C.20Q-760
Open-circuit voltage 48.60 V 50.90 V 2.30 V apart
Voltage at max power 40.50 V 42.90 V 2.40 V apart
Short-circuit current 18.32 A 18.85 A 0.53 A apart
Current at max power 17.29 A 17.72 A Effectively the same
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.260 %/°C +0.030 %/°C for NEG21C.20Q-760
Mechanical
Dimensions 2384x1303x33 mm 2384x1303x33 mm Same
Module area 3.106 m² 3.106 m² Same
Weight 32.9 kg 38.3 kg -5.4 kg for NE21 700W
Weight per kWp 47.0 kg/kWp 50.4 kg/kWp -3.4 kg/kWp for NE21 700W
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty 12 yrs 12 yrs Same
Performance warranty 25 yrs 30 yrs +5 yrs for NEG21C.20Q-760
Annual degradation 0.40 %/yr 0.35 %/yr -0.05 %/yr for NEG21C.20Q-760
Technology
Cell technology TOPCon TOPCon Same
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 132 264 132 cells apart
Bifacial No Yes No vs Yes
04

Against the whole database

14,005 panels
Efficiency
#4,222 vs #74
NEG21C.20Q-760 leads by 4,148 places
Power density
#3,989 vs #86
NEG21C.20Q-760 leads by 3,903 places
Heat behaviour
#2,165 vs #511
NEG21C.20Q-760 leads by 1,654 places
Weight
#1,450 vs #3,780
NE21 700W leads by 2,330 places
Warranty
#9,798 vs #21
NEG21C.20Q-760 leads by 9,777 places
Overall
#1,679 vs #66
NEG21C.20Q-760 leads by 1,613 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
Trina Solar TSM-NE21 700W vs Trina Solar TSM-NE21 725W
5 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Trina Solar TSM-NE21 700W vs Trina Solar TSM-NE21 720W
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Trina Solar TSM-NE21 700W vs Trina Solar TSM-NE21 715W
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Trina Solar TSM-NE21 700W vs Trina Solar TSM-NE21 710W
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Trina Solar TSM-NE21 700W vs Trina Solar TSM-NE21 705W
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Trina Solar TSM-NE21 700W vs Trina Solar TSM-NE21 695W
The same specification on paper
06

Written summary

Checking cache...
07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: Trina Solar TSM-NE21 700W or Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-760?
According to our database: Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-760 has higher module efficiency (24.50% vs 22.50%); Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-760 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 Trina Solar TSM-NE21 700W and Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-760?
Trina Solar TSM-NE21 700 W has a module efficiency of 22.50%, while Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-760 is 24.50%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Trina Solar TSM-NE21 700W use vs Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-760?
Trina Solar TSM-NE21 700 W uses TOPCon cells; Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-760 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 Trina Solar TSM-NE21 700W and Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-760?
Trina Solar TSM-NE21 700 W has a 25 years power warranty; Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-760 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 Trina Solar TSM-NE21 700W and Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-760 bifacial panels?
Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-760 is bifacial (captures light from both faces); Trina Solar TSM-NE21 700 W is monofacial. Bifacial panels work best on ground mounts or raised structures with a light-coloured surface underneath.

Shop prices: See 248 Trina 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.