---
title: "Runergy vs ZNShine - Brand Comparison | ComparePV"
description: "Compare Runergy vs ZNShine solar panels: full portfolio, efficiency, cell technology breakdown, warranty terms and company background."
source: "https://comparepv.com/runergy-vs-znshine"
---

# Runergy vs ZNShine

ZNShine has the broader catalog (212 vs 124 models). Runergy leads on peak efficiency at 24.10%. Runergy leans bifacial (77% of lineup).


## The two companies


| Attribute | Runergy | ZNShine |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Country | China | China |
| Headquarters | Yancheng, Jiangsu Province | Suqian |
| Founded | 2013 | 1988 |
| Employees | 15,000 | 1,200 |
| Annual capacity | 23GW (module capacity), 63GW (cell capacity) GW/year | 10 GW/year |
| Tier 1 | yes | yes |
| Listed |  | NEEQ: 838463 |
| Website | [http://www.runergy.com](http://www.runergy.com) | [http://www.znshinesolar.com](http://www.znshinesolar.com) |

Runergy is a global leader in solar technology, specializing in the R&D and production of high-efficiency solar cells and modules. The company is committed to innovation, quality, and providing a transparent and efficient supply chain to meet the growing global demand for clean energy. They have established production...

ZNShine Solar is a high-tech PV enterprise specializing in R&D, manufacturing, and sales of solar modules. They also provide integrated photovoltaic, battery storage, and green hydrogen solutions, as well as BIPV, rooftop solar, and utility-scale solar solutions with a commitment to boosting green electricity...


## Catalog & Power


| Measure | Runergy | ZNShine | Margin |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Panel Models | 124 | 212 | +88 |
| Max Power | 740 W | 670 W | +70 W |
| Avg Power | 579 W | 535 W | +45 W |


## Efficiency


| Measure | Runergy | ZNShine | Margin |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Max Efficiency | 24.10% | 22.83% | +1.27 pp |
| Avg Efficiency | 22.42% | 21.35% | +1.07 pp |


## Reliability & Warranty


| Measure | Runergy | ZNShine | Margin |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Avg Temp Coefficient | -0.298%/°C | -0.329%/°C | +0.031 |
| Bifacial Share | 95 (77%) | 89 (42%) | +35 pp |
| Avg Warranty | 29.1 yrs | 28.3 yrs | +0.8 yr |


## Efficiency distribution

Runergy skews to higher efficiency: 33% of lineup is 23%+


| Efficiency band | Runergy | ZNShine |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 20-21% | 9 (7.3%) | 59 (27.8%) |
| 21-22% | 26 (21.0%) | 101 (47.6%) |
| 22-23% | 48 (38.7%) | 47 (22.2%) |
| 23%+ | 41 (33.1%) | 0 |
| \<20% | 0 | 5 (2.4%) |


## Power distribution

Runergy offers more 600W+ panels (48% of lineup)


| Power band | Runergy | ZNShine |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 400-499W | 36 (29.0%) | 64 (30.2%) |
| 500-599W | 28 (22.6%) | 99 (46.7%) |
| 600-699W | 35 (28.2%) | 43 (20.3%) |
| 700W+ | 25 (20.2%) | 0 |
| \<400W | 0 | 6 (2.8%) |


## Cell technology

Dominant cell tech: **N-type** (60%)

Dominant cell tech: **PERC** (63%)


| Technology | Runergy | ZNShine |
| --- | --- | --- |
| N-type | 74 (59.7%) | 0 |
| PERC | 32 (25.8%) | 134 (63.2%) |
| HJT | 18 (14.5%) | 0 |
| TOPCon | 0 | 78 (36.8%) |


## Top panels, Runergy


| # | Model | Power | Efficiency | Temp. coefficient | Technology |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | [HY-DH132H10-740](https://comparepv.com/panel/runergy-hy-dh132h10-740) | 740 | 23.8 | -0.260 | Monocrystalline |
| 2 | [HY-DH132H10-Plus-740](https://comparepv.com/panel/runergy-hy-dh132h10-plus-740) | 740 | 23.8 | -0.260 | Monocrystalline |
| 3 | [HY-DH132H10-735](https://comparepv.com/panel/runergy-hy-dh132h10-735) | 735 | 23.7 | -0.260 | Monocrystalline |
| 4 | [HY-DH132H10-Plus-735](https://comparepv.com/panel/runergy-hy-dh132h10-plus-735) | 735 | 23.7 | -0.260 | Monocrystalline |
| 5 | [HY-DH132H10-730](https://comparepv.com/panel/runergy-hy-dh132h10-730) | 730 | 23.5 | -0.260 | Monocrystalline |
| 6 | [HY-DH132N10-730](https://comparepv.com/panel/runergy-hy-dh132n10-730) | 730 | 23.5 | -0.290 | Monocrystalline |
| 7 | [HY-DH132H10-Plus-730](https://comparepv.com/panel/runergy-hy-dh132h10-plus-730) | 730 | 23.5 | -0.260 | Monocrystalline |
| 8 | [HY-DH132H10-725](https://comparepv.com/panel/runergy-hy-dh132h10-725) | 725 | 23.3 | -0.260 | Monocrystalline |
| 9 | [HY-DH132N10-725](https://comparepv.com/panel/runergy-hy-dh132n10-725) | 725 | 23.3 | -0.290 | Monocrystalline |
| 10 | [HY-DH132H10-Plus-725](https://comparepv.com/panel/runergy-hy-dh132h10-plus-725) | 725 | 23.3 | -0.260 | Monocrystalline |


## Top panels, ZNShine


| # | Model | Power | Efficiency | Temp. coefficient | Technology |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | [ZXM8-TP132-670W](https://comparepv.com/panel/znshine-zxm8-tp132-670w) | 670 | 21.6 | -0.340 | Monocrystalline |
| 2 | [ZXM8-TPLD132-670](https://comparepv.com/panel/znshine-zxm8-tpld132-670) | 670 | 21.6 | -0.340 | Monocrystalline |
| 3 | [ZXM8-TPLDD132-670](https://comparepv.com/panel/znshine-zxm8-tpldd132-670) | 670 | 21.6 | -0.340 | Monocrystalline |
| 4 | [ZXM8-TP132-670](https://comparepv.com/panel/znshine-zxm8-tp132-670) | 670 | 21.6 | -0.340 | Monocrystalline |
| 5 | [ZXM8-TPLD132-670W](https://comparepv.com/panel/znshine-zxm8-tpld132-670w) | 670 | 21.6 | -0.340 | Monocrystalline |
| 6 | [ZXM8-TP132-665W](https://comparepv.com/panel/znshine-zxm8-tp132-665w) | 665 | 21.4 | -0.340 | Monocrystalline |
| 7 | [ZXM8-TPLD132-665](https://comparepv.com/panel/znshine-zxm8-tpld132-665) | 665 | 21.4 | -0.340 | Monocrystalline |
| 8 | [ZXM8-TPLDD132-665](https://comparepv.com/panel/znshine-zxm8-tpldd132-665) | 665 | 21.4 | -0.340 | Monocrystalline |
| 9 | [ZXM8-TPLD132-665W](https://comparepv.com/panel/znshine-zxm8-tpld132-665w) | 665 | 21.4 | -0.340 | Monocrystalline |
| 10 | [ZXM8-TP132-665](https://comparepv.com/panel/znshine-zxm8-tp132-665) | 665 | 21.4 | -0.340 | Monocrystalline |


## Summary

Runergy (Jiangsu Runergy New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.) is a Chinese manufacturer headquartered in Jiangsu province that built its reputation first as a large-scale cell producer before expanding into module manufacturing. The company has held BloombergNEF Tier 1 status for six consecutive quarters as of Q1 2025, and its production footprint is substantial - combined cell capacity reportedly exceeds 63 GW, with module output capacity reaching approximately 21 GW per year. Runergy has also commissioned a 2 GW U.S. manufacturing facility in Huntsville, Alabama, broadening its geographic reach. ZNShine (ZNSHINE PV-TECH Co., Ltd.), likewise based in Jiangsu province, has maintained uninterrupted BNEF Tier 1 certification since 2015, representing a full decade of continuous bankability recognition. Its total production capacity stands at around 10 GW across plants in Changzhou, Suqian, and Yunnan, and it has achieved a B rating in PV Tech's separate bankability ranking. On institutional footprint, ZNShine's longer and unbroken Tier 1 track record gives it a clear advantage with conservative project lenders and insurers.

Runergy's product lineup is centered on N-type TOPCon bifacial modules targeting utility-scale ground-mount arrays and large commercial rooftop installations. The company's cell efficiency achievements - including a publicly reported world record of 26.55% for a full-area N-type cell and a mass-production average of 25 to 25.5 percent - feed directly into competitive module output ratings, and PV Magazine's independent testing placed Runergy's N-type modules among the top performers in recent evaluations. ZNShine offers a broader technology portfolio: N-type TOPCon bifacial modules in configurations ranging from roughly 440 W to 585 W sit alongside a high-power HJT series reaching up to 750 W per module. The HJT line carries a low temperature coefficient of -0.24%/°C and strong low-light performance, making it a compelling choice for sites with elevated ambient temperatures or frequent cloud cover. Both manufacturers serve residential, commercial, and utility segments globally, though ZNShine's HJT offering provides a differentiated premium option.

For most international buyers procuring at commercial or utility scale, both brands represent credible, bankable choices and are broadly interchangeable in standard TOPCon bifacial applications. Buyers who place a premium on a long and unbroken bankability record, or who want access to HJT technology alongside TOPCon, will likely favor ZNShine. Those seeking a rapidly scaling supplier with a growing U.S. manufacturing presence and strong cell-efficiency credentials - particularly for projects where American-made content carries value - may find Runergy the more strategically interesting partner.

Written by claude-sonnet from the figures above.


## Other comparisons

- [Runergy vs A.B. Energy](https://comparepv.com/runergy-vs-a-b-energy)
- [AE Solar vs ZNShine](https://comparepv.com/ae-solar-vs-znshine)
- [Runergy vs AEET](https://comparepv.com/runergy-vs-aeet)
- [AIKO vs ZNShine](https://comparepv.com/aiko-vs-znshine)
- [Runergy vs AKCOME](https://comparepv.com/runergy-vs-akcome)
- [ARTsolar vs ZNShine](https://comparepv.com/artsolar-vs-znshine)


---

Source: https://comparepv.com/runergy-vs-znshine

Not in this file, on the page: the distributions above drawn as charts.