Skip to main content
NE21 725W vs NEG21C.20Q-760 7 of 19 identical Swap Change panels

Trina Solar TSM-NE21 725W vs Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-760

Trina Solar TSM-NE21 725W
TSM-NE21 725W
725 Wp 23.30 % TOPCon
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
VS
Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-760
TSM-NEG21C.20Q-760
760 Wp 24.50 % TOPCon Bifacial
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
The verdict

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

The largest is module efficiency: 1.20 pp more efficient. 7 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.

See all 12 differences
How alike are they
7 of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
identical differs
01

What actually differs

12 of 19 parameters
Parameter NE21 725W NEG21C.20Q-760 Difference
Module efficiency 23.30 % 24.50 % 1.20 pp more efficient
Performance warranty 25 yrs 30 yrs 5 yrs longer
Power density 233.4 Wp/m² 244.7 Wp/m² 11.3 Wp/m² higher
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.260 %/°C 0.030 %/°C better in heat
Rated power 725 Wp 760 Wp 35 W more power
Weight 32.9 kg 38.3 kg 5.4 kg lighter
Weight per kWp 45.4 kg/kWp 50.4 kg/kWp 5.0 kg/kWp lighter
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
Open-circuit voltage 49.70 V 50.90 V 1.20 V apart
Voltage at max power 41.50 V 42.90 V 1.40 V 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 725W
24,325 kWh
NEG21C.20Q-760
25,698 kWh
Lifetime gap
1,373 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario NE21 725W NEG21C.20Q-760
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 725 W 760 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.7% of rated power 693 W 730 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.3% of rated power 662 W 701 W
Hot roof 70 °C 87.0% of rated power 630 W 671 W
03

Full specification

Parameter NE21 725W NEG21C.20Q-760 Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 725 Wp 760 Wp +35 W for NEG21C.20Q-760
Module efficiency 23.30 % 24.50 % +1.20 pp for NEG21C.20Q-760
Power density 233.4 Wp/m² 244.7 Wp/m² +11.3 Wp/m² for NEG21C.20Q-760
Open-circuit voltage 49.70 V 50.90 V 1.20 V apart
Voltage at max power 41.50 V 42.90 V 1.40 V apart
Short-circuit current 18.49 A 18.85 A Effectively the same
Current at max power 17.47 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 725W
Weight per kWp 45.4 kg/kWp 50.4 kg/kWp -5.0 kg/kWp for NE21 725W
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
#1,017 vs #74
NEG21C.20Q-760 leads by 943 places
Power density
#936 vs #86
NEG21C.20Q-760 leads by 850 places
Heat behaviour
#2,165 vs #511
NEG21C.20Q-760 leads by 1,654 places
Weight
#717 vs #3,780
NE21 725W leads by 3,063 places
Warranty
#9,798 vs #21
NEG21C.20Q-760 leads by 9,777 places
Overall
#794 vs #66
NEG21C.20Q-760 leads by 728 places
05

More useful comparisons

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

Written summary

07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: Trina Solar TSM-NE21 725W or Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-760?
According to our database: Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-760 has higher module efficiency (24.50% vs 23.30%); 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 725W and Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-760?
Trina Solar TSM-NE21 725 W has a module efficiency of 23.30%, 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 725W use vs Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-760?
Trina Solar TSM-NE21 725 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 725W and Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-760?
Trina Solar TSM-NE21 725 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 725W 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 725 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.