REC vs AKCOME - solar panel manufacturer comparison

REC Group was founded in Norway in 1996 and later acquired by India's Reliance Industries in 2021 for approximately $771 million. Module manufacturing is now centered in Singapore, with expansion commitments across Europe and the United States. REC has historically carried BloombergNEF Tier 1 status, though analysts noted its bankability came under pressure heading into 2025 following a sharp decline in shipments and the 2024 divestiture of its Norwegian polysilicon operations to Elkem for $22 million. AKCOME (Akcome Group) is a Chinese manufacturer founded in 2006 and publicly listed in Shenzhen. The company built roughly 3.2 GW of heterojunction cell production capacity across multiple Chinese sites, but one of its subsidiaries - Zhejiang Akcome Photoelectricity Technology - filed for bankruptcy in 2024 due to debt obligations, and AKCOME was removed from the BloombergNEF Tier 1 list as of the 2024 rankings. Despite its own challenges, REC retains the stronger global institutional footprint.

REC is positioned as a premium residential and commercial brand, best known for its Alpha and Alpha Pure series built on HJT cell technology, which deliver a notably low temperature coefficient and minimal annual degradation. These characteristics, combined with a 25-year product and labor warranty offered through certified installers, have made REC a preferred choice for buyers who prioritize long-term output guarantees over upfront cost savings. AKCOME is also fully committed to HJT cell technology and produces high-wattage modules in the 655 W to 700 W range aimed primarily at commercial and utility-scale ground-mount projects. The company has additionally set up a pilot factory for perovskite cells, though commercial availability remains distant.

For a typical buyer in 2025, REC is the more defensible default where availability allows, given its established installer network and more transparent financial backing. AKCOME may compete in large commercial tenders where per-watt cost and HJT efficiency are the dominant criteria, but the subsidiary bankruptcy and Tier 1 delisting introduce procurement risk that project lenders and insurers are likely to scrutinize closely.

Generated by Claude Sonnet · 2026-06-09