Skip to main content
NEG19RC.20Q vs NE19R-650 6 of 19 identical Swap Change panels

Trina Solar TSM-NEG19RC.20Q vs Trina Solar TSM-NE19R-650

Trina Solar TSM-NEG19RC.20Q
TSM-NEG19RC.20Q
670 Wp 24.80 % TOPCon Bifacial
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
VS
Trina Solar TSM-NE19R-650
TSM-NE19R-650
650 Wp 24.10 % TOPCon
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
The verdict

NEG19RC.20Q leads on the differences that matter

The largest is module efficiency: 0.70 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 NEG19RC.20Q NE19R-650 Difference
Module efficiency 24.80 % 24.10 % 0.70 pp more efficient
Performance warranty 30 yrs 25 yrs 5 yrs longer
Temperature coefficient -0.260 %/°C -0.290 %/°C 0.030 %/°C better in heat
Weight 33.0 kg 27.9 kg 5.1 kg lighter
Power density 248.0 Wp/m² 240.6 Wp/m² 7.4 Wp/m² higher
Weight per kWp 49.3 kg/kWp 42.9 kg/kWp 6.3 kg/kWp lighter
Rated power 670 Wp 650 Wp 20 W more power
Annual degradation 0.35 %/yr 0.40 %/yr 0.05 %/yr slower
Cell count 264 132 132 cells apart
Bifacial Yes No Yes vs No
Short-circuit current 16.60 A 16.01 A 0.59 A apart
Current at max power 15.94 A 15.05 A 0.89 A apart
Voltage at max power 42.04 V 43.20 V 1.16 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
NEG19RC.20Q
22,655 kWh
NE19R-650
21,809 kWh
Lifetime gap
846 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario NEG19RC.20Q NE19R-650
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 670 W 650 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.7% of rated power 644 W 622 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.3% of rated power 618 W 593 W
Hot roof 70 °C 87.0% of rated power 592 W 565 W
03

Full specification

Parameter NEG19RC.20Q NE19R-650 Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 670 Wp 650 Wp +20 W for NEG19RC.20Q
Module efficiency 24.80 % 24.10 % +0.70 pp for NEG19RC.20Q
Power density 248.0 Wp/m² 240.6 Wp/m² +7.4 Wp/m² for NEG19RC.20Q
Open-circuit voltage 50.95 V 51.50 V Effectively the same
Voltage at max power 42.04 V 43.20 V 1.16 V apart
Short-circuit current 16.60 A 16.01 A 0.59 A apart
Current at max power 15.94 A 15.05 A 0.89 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.260 %/°C -0.290 %/°C +0.030 %/°C for NEG19RC.20Q
Mechanical
Dimensions 2382x1134x30 mm 2382x1134x30 mm Same
Module area 2.701 m² 2.701 m² Same
Weight 33.0 kg 27.9 kg -5.1 kg for NE19R-650
Weight per kWp 49.3 kg/kWp 42.9 kg/kWp -6.3 kg/kWp for NE19R-650
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty 12 yrs 12 yrs Same
Performance warranty 30 yrs 25 yrs +5 yrs for NEG19RC.20Q
Annual degradation 0.35 %/yr 0.40 %/yr -0.05 %/yr for NEG19RC.20Q
Technology
Cell technology TOPCon TOPCon Same
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 264 132 132 cells apart
Bifacial Yes No Yes vs No
04

Against the whole database

14,005 panels
Efficiency
#12 vs #219
NEG19RC.20Q leads by 207 places
Power density
#14 vs #233
NEG19RC.20Q leads by 219 places
Heat behaviour
#511 vs #2,165
NEG19RC.20Q leads by 1,654 places
Weight
#2,825 vs #256
NE19R-650 leads by 2,569 places
Warranty
#21 vs #9,798
NEG19RC.20Q leads by 9,777 places
Overall
#490 vs #1,603
NEG19RC.20Q leads by 1,113 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
Trina Solar TSM-NEG19RC.20Q vs Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-760
8 differences, the largest is rated power
Same series, other bin
Trina Solar TSM-NEG19RC.20Q vs Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-755
8 differences, the largest is rated power
Same series, other bin
Trina Solar TSM-NEG19RC.20Q vs Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-750
8 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Trina Solar TSM-NEG19RC.20Q vs Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-745
9 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Trina Solar TSM-NEG19RC.20Q vs Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-740
9 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Trina Solar TSM-NEG19RC.20Q vs Trina Solar TSM-NEG21C.20Q-735
10 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06

Written summary

07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: Trina Solar TSM-NEG19RC.20Q or Trina Solar TSM-NE19R-650?
According to our database: Trina Solar TSM-NEG19RC.20Q has higher module efficiency (24.80% vs 24.10%); Trina Solar TSM-NEG19RC.20Q 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-NEG19RC.20Q and Trina Solar TSM-NE19R-650?
Trina Solar TSM-NEG19RC.20Q has a module efficiency of 24.80%, while Trina Solar TSM-NE19R-650 is 24.10%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Trina Solar TSM-NEG19RC.20Q use vs Trina Solar TSM-NE19R-650?
Trina Solar TSM-NEG19RC.20Q uses TOPCon cells; Trina Solar TSM-NE19R-650 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-NEG19RC.20Q and Trina Solar TSM-NE19R-650?
Trina Solar TSM-NEG19RC.20Q has a 30 years power warranty; Trina Solar TSM-NE19R-650 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-NEG19RC.20Q and Trina Solar TSM-NE19R-650 bifacial panels?
Trina Solar TSM-NEG19RC.20Q is bifacial (captures light from both faces); Trina Solar TSM-NE19R-650 is monofacial. Bifacial panels work best on ground mounts or raised structures with a light-coloured surface underneath.

Shop prices: See 250 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.