Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.640.05 vs Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.AAA.05-720
VS
Vikram Solar
HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.AAA.05-720
720 Wp
23.18 %
N-type
Bifacial
The verdict
640.05 leads on the differences that matter
The largest is rated power: 80 W more power. 10 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.
See all 9 differencesHow alike are they
10
of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
parameters are identical
identical
differs
01
9 of 19 parameters
What actually differs
Parameter
640.05
AAA.05-720
Difference
Rated power
640 Wp
720 Wp
80 W more power
Module efficiency
23.69 %
23.18 %
0.51 pp more efficient
Weight
33.4 kg
39.5 kg
6.1 kg lighter
Short-circuit current
16.16 A
18.52 A
2.36 A apart
Module area
2.701 m²
3.106 m²
0.405 m² apart
Power density
236.9 Wp/m²
231.8 Wp/m²
5.1 Wp/m² higher
Weight per kWp
52.2 kg/kWp
54.9 kg/kWp
2.7 kg/kWp lighter
Current at max power
15.25 A
17.49 A
2.24 A apart
Dimensions
2382x1134x30 mm
2384x1303x35 mm
2382x1134x30 mm vs 2384x1303x35 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
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.
640.05
21,473 kWh
AAA.05-720
24,157 kWh
Lifetime gap
2,684 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario
640.05
AAA.05-720
Standard test conditions
25 °C
100.0% of rated power
640 W
720 W
Cool, bright day
40 °C
95.8% of rated power
613 W
690 W
Typical summer roof
55 °C
91.6% of rated power
586 W
660 W
Hot roof
70 °C
87.4% of rated power
559 W
629 W
03
Full specification
Parameter
640.05
AAA.05-720
Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power
640 Wp
720 Wp
+80 W for AAA.05-720
Module efficiency
23.69 %
23.18 %
+0.51 pp for 640.05
Power density
236.9 Wp/m²
231.8 Wp/m²
+5.1 Wp/m² for 640.05
Open-circuit voltage
49.90 V
49.40 V
Effectively the same
Voltage at max power
42.00 V
41.20 V
Effectively the same
Short-circuit current
16.16 A
18.52 A
2.36 A apart
Current at max power
15.25 A
17.49 A
2.24 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient
-0.280 %/°C
-0.280 %/°C
Same
Mechanical
Dimensions
2382x1134x30 mm
2384x1303x35 mm
2382x1134x30 mm vs 2384x1303x35 mm
Module area
2.701 m²
3.106 m²
0.405 m² apart
Weight
33.4 kg
39.5 kg
-6.1 kg for 640.05
Weight per kWp
52.2 kg/kWp
54.9 kg/kWp
-2.7 kg/kWp for 640.05
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty
12 yrs
12 yrs
Same
Performance warranty
30 yrs
30 yrs
Same
Annual degradation
0.40 %/yr
0.40 %/yr
Same
Technology
Cell technology
N-type
N-type
Same
Cell type
Monocrystalline
Monocrystalline
Same
Cell count
132
132
Same
Bifacial
Yes
Yes
Same
04
14,129 panels
Against the whole database
Efficiency
#612
vs
#1,468
640.05 leads by 856 places
Power density
#553
vs
#1,390
640.05 leads by 837 places
Heat behaviour
#1,347
vs
#1,347
Tied - the same position in the database
Weight
#5,707
vs
#9,332
640.05 leads by 3,625 places
Warranty
#21
vs
#21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#1,555
vs
#574
AAA.05-720 leads by 981 places
05
Open the full database
More useful comparisons
Same series, other bin
Vikram Solar
Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.640.05 vs Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.730.05
6 differences, the largest is rated power
Same series, other bin
Vikram Solar
Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.640.05 vs Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.725.05
8 differences, the largest is rated power
Same series, other bin
Vikram Solar
Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.640.05 vs Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.720.05
8 differences, the largest is rated power
Same series, other bin
Vikram Solar
Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.640.05 vs Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.715.05
9 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Vikram Solar
Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.640.05 vs Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.AAA.05-715
10 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Vikram Solar
Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.640.05 vs Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.710.05
9 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06
Written summary
Checking cache...
07
Questions about this pairing
Which panel is better: Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.640.05 or Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.AAA.05-720?
According to our database: Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.640.05 has higher module efficiency (23.69% vs 23.18%). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.640.05 and Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.AAA.05-720?
Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.640.05 has a module efficiency of 23.69%, while Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.AAA.05-720 is 23.18%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.640.05 use vs Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.AAA.05-720?
Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.640.05 uses N-type cells; Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.AAA.05-720 uses N-type. 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 Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.640.05 and Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.AAA.05-720?
Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.640.05 has a 30 years power warranty; Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.AAA.05-720 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 Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.640.05 and Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.AAA.05-720 bifacial panels?
Both Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.640.05 and Vikram Solar HYPERSOL VSMDH.66.AAA.05-720 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.
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.