Skip to main content
ZXM8-TP132-670W vs ZXM7-UH156-625 4 of 19 identical Swap Change panels

ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670W vs ZNShine ZXM7-UH156-625

ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670W
ZXM8-TP132-670W
670 Wp 21.57 % PERC
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
VS
ZNShine ZXM7-UH156-625
ZXM7-UH156-625
625 Wp 22.36 % TOPCon
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
The verdict

ZXM7-UH156-625 leads on the differences that matter

The largest is temperature coefficient: 0.040 %/°C better in heat. 4 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.

See all 15 differences
How alike are they
4 of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
identical differs
01

What actually differs

15 of 19 parameters
Parameter ZXM8-TP132-670W ZXM7-UH156-625 Difference
Temperature coefficient -0.340 %/°C -0.300 %/°C 0.040 %/°C better in heat
Module efficiency 21.57 % 22.36 % 0.79 pp more efficient
Rated power 670 Wp 625 Wp 45 W more power
Power density 215.7 Wp/m² 223.6 Wp/m² 7.9 Wp/m² higher
Weight 33.5 kg 30.0 kg 3.5 kg lighter
Open-circuit voltage 46.00 V 55.80 V 9.80 V apart
Short-circuit current 18.62 A 14.31 A 4.31 A apart
Module area 3.106 m² 2.795 m² 0.311 m² apart
Cell technology PERC TOPCon PERC vs TOPCon
Annual degradation 0.55 %/yr 0.50 %/yr 0.05 %/yr slower
Voltage at max power 38.20 V 46.20 V 8.00 V apart
Current at max power 17.54 A 13.53 A 4.01 A apart
Cell count 132 156 24 cells apart
Weight per kWp 50.0 kg/kWp 48.0 kg/kWp 2.0 kg/kWp lighter
Dimensions 2384x1303x35 mm 2465x1134x35 mm 2384x1303x35 mm vs 2465x1134x35 mm
02

What it means on a roof

Thirty years of production
Declared annual degradation, with a 1.0% first-year loss assumed for both panels because at least one datasheet omits it, at 1,200 kWh/kWp a year
ZXM8-TP132-670W
21,955 kWh
ZXM7-UH156-625
20,644 kWh
Lifetime gap
1,311 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario ZXM8-TP132-670W ZXM7-UH156-625
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 670 W 625 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 94.9% of rated power 636 W 597 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 89.8% of rated power 602 W 569 W
Hot roof 70 °C 84.7% of rated power 567 W 541 W
03

Full specification

Parameter ZXM8-TP132-670W ZXM7-UH156-625 Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 670 Wp 625 Wp +45 W for ZXM8-TP132-670W
Module efficiency 21.57 % 22.36 % +0.79 pp for ZXM7-UH156-625
Power density 215.7 Wp/m² 223.6 Wp/m² +7.9 Wp/m² for ZXM7-UH156-625
Open-circuit voltage 46.00 V 55.80 V 9.80 V apart
Voltage at max power 38.20 V 46.20 V 8.00 V apart
Short-circuit current 18.62 A 14.31 A 4.31 A apart
Current at max power 17.54 A 13.53 A 4.01 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.340 %/°C -0.300 %/°C +0.040 %/°C for ZXM7-UH156-625
Mechanical
Dimensions 2384x1303x35 mm 2465x1134x35 mm 2384x1303x35 mm vs 2465x1134x35 mm
Module area 3.106 m² 2.795 m² 0.311 m² apart
Weight 33.5 kg 30.0 kg -3.5 kg for ZXM7-UH156-625
Weight per kWp 50.0 kg/kWp 48.0 kg/kWp -2.0 kg/kWp for ZXM7-UH156-625
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty 12 yrs 12 yrs Same
Performance warranty 25 yrs 25 yrs Same
Annual degradation 0.55 %/yr 0.50 %/yr -0.05 %/yr for ZXM7-UH156-625
Technology
Cell technology PERC TOPCon PERC vs TOPCon
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 132 156 24 cells apart
Bifacial No No Same
04

Against the whole database

14,005 panels
Efficiency
#7,734 vs #5,007
ZXM7-UH156-625 leads by 2,727 places
Power density
#7,644 vs #4,955
ZXM7-UH156-625 leads by 2,689 places
Heat behaviour
#8,778 vs #6,093
ZXM7-UH156-625 leads by 2,685 places
Weight
#3,317 vs #2,004
ZXM7-UH156-625 leads by 1,313 places
Warranty
#9,798 vs #9,798
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#3,392 vs #4,035
ZXM8-TP132-670W leads by 643 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670W vs ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670
The same specification on paper
Same series, other bin
ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670W vs ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-665W
The same specification on paper
Same series, other bin
ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670W vs ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-665
The same specification on paper
Same series, other bin
ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670W vs ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-660W
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670W vs ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-660
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670W vs ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-655W
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06

Written summary

07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670W or ZNShine ZXM7-UH156-625?
According to our database: ZNShine ZXM7-UH156-625 has higher module efficiency (22.36% vs 21.57%); ZNShine ZXM7-UH156-625 tolerates heat better (temp coeff -0.300%/°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 ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670W and ZNShine ZXM7-UH156-625?
ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670 W has a module efficiency of 21.57%, while ZNShine ZXM7-UH156-625 is 22.36%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670W use vs ZNShine ZXM7-UH156-625?
ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670 W uses PERC cells; ZNShine ZXM7-UH156-625 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 ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670W and ZNShine ZXM7-UH156-625?
ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670 W has a 25 years power warranty; ZNShine ZXM7-UH156-625 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.

Shop prices: See 12 ZNShine 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.