Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20-735 vs Trina Solar TSM-DE19R-565
VS
The verdict
NEG21C.20-735 leads on the differences that matter
The largest is module efficiency: 2.80 pp more efficient. 3 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.
See all 16 differencesHow alike are they
3
of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
parameters are identical
identical
differs
01
16 of 19 parameters
What actually differs
Parameter
NEG21C.20-735
DE19R-565
Difference
Module efficiency
23.70 %
20.90 %
2.80 pp more efficient
Temperature coefficient
-0.290 %/°C
-0.340 %/°C
0.050 %/°C better in heat
Rated power
735 Wp
565 Wp
170 W more power
Power density
236.6 Wp/m²
209.2 Wp/m²
27.4 Wp/m² higher
Performance warranty
30 yrs
25 yrs
5 yrs longer
Annual degradation
0.40 %/yr
0.55 %/yr
0.15 %/yr slower
Weight
38.3 kg
28.1 kg
10.2 kg lighter
Open-circuit voltage
50.10 V
45.60 V
4.50 V apart
Short-circuit current
18.62 A
15.81 A
2.81 A apart
Module area
3.106 m²
2.701 m²
0.405 m² apart
Cell technology
TOPCon
PERC
TOPCon vs PERC
Current at max power
17.55 A
14.76 A
2.79 A apart
Voltage at max power
41.90 V
38.30 V
3.60 V apart
Weight per kWp
52.1 kg/kWp
49.7 kg/kWp
2.4 kg/kWp lighter
Bifacial
Yes
No
Yes vs No
Dimensions
2384x1303x33 mm
2382x1134x30 mm
2384x1303x33 mm vs 2382x1134x30 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
NEG21C.20-735
24,661 kWh
DE19R-565
18,311 kWh
Lifetime gap
6,350 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario
NEG21C.20-735
DE19R-565
Standard test conditions
25 °C
100.0% of rated power
735 W
565 W
Cool, bright day
40 °C
94.9% of rated power
703 W
536 W
Typical summer roof
55 °C
89.8% of rated power
671 W
507 W
Hot roof
70 °C
84.7% of rated power
639 W
479 W
03
Full specification
Parameter
NEG21C.20-735
DE19R-565
Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power
735 Wp
565 Wp
+170 W for NEG21C.20-735
Module efficiency
23.70 %
20.90 %
+2.80 pp for NEG21C.20-735
Power density
236.6 Wp/m²
209.2 Wp/m²
+27.4 Wp/m² for NEG21C.20-735
Open-circuit voltage
50.10 V
45.60 V
4.50 V apart
Voltage at max power
41.90 V
38.30 V
3.60 V apart
Short-circuit current
18.62 A
15.81 A
2.81 A apart
Current at max power
17.55 A
14.76 A
2.79 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient
-0.290 %/°C
-0.340 %/°C
+0.050 %/°C for NEG21C.20-735
Mechanical
Dimensions
2384x1303x33 mm
2382x1134x30 mm
2384x1303x33 mm vs 2382x1134x30 mm
Module area
3.106 m²
2.701 m²
0.405 m² apart
Weight
38.3 kg
28.1 kg
-10.2 kg for DE19R-565
Weight per kWp
52.1 kg/kWp
49.7 kg/kWp
-2.4 kg/kWp for DE19R-565
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty
12 yrs
12 yrs
Same
Performance warranty
30 yrs
25 yrs
+5 yrs for NEG21C.20-735
Annual degradation
0.40 %/yr
0.55 %/yr
-0.15 %/yr for NEG21C.20-735
Technology
Cell technology
TOPCon
PERC
TOPCon vs PERC
Cell type
Monocrystalline
Monocrystalline
Same
Cell count
132
132
Same
Bifacial
Yes
No
Yes vs No
04
14,129 panels
Against the whole database
Efficiency
#549
vs
#10,148
NEG21C.20-735 leads by 9,599 places
Power density
#614
vs
#10,162
NEG21C.20-735 leads by 9,548 places
Heat behaviour
#2,220
vs
#8,846
NEG21C.20-735 leads by 6,626 places
Weight
#5,616
vs
#3,222
DE19R-565 leads by 2,394 places
Warranty
#21
vs
#9,912
NEG21C.20-735 leads by 9,891 places
Overall
#234
vs
#8,011
NEG21C.20-735 leads by 7,777 places
05
Open the full database
More useful comparisons
Same series, other bin
Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20-735 vs Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20-740
The same specification on paper
Same series, other bin
Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20-735 vs Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20-730
One difference: module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20-735 vs Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20-725
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20-735 vs Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20-720
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20-735 vs Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20-715
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Trina Solar TSM-DE19R-565 vs Trina Solar TSM-DE19R-585
5 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06
Written summary
Checking cache...
07
Questions about this pairing
Which panel is better: Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20-735 or Trina Solar TSM-DE19R-565?
According to our database: Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20-735 has higher module efficiency (23.70% vs 20.90%); Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20-735 tolerates heat better (temp coeff -0.290%/°C vs -0.340%/°C). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20-735 and Trina Solar TSM-DE19R-565?
Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20-735 has a module efficiency of 23.70%, while Trina Solar TSM-DE19R-565 is 20.90%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20-735 use vs Trina Solar TSM-DE19R-565?
Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20-735 uses TOPCon cells; Trina Solar TSM-DE19R-565 uses PERC. 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-NEG21C.20-735 and Trina Solar TSM-DE19R-565?
Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20-735 has a 30 years power warranty; Trina Solar TSM-DE19R-565 has a 25 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-NEG21C.20-735 and Trina Solar TSM-DE19R-565 bifacial panels?
Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20-735 is bifacial (captures light from both faces); Trina Solar TSM-DE19R-565 is monofacial. Bifacial panels work best on ground mounts or raised structures with a light-coloured surface underneath.
Shop prices: See 190 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.

