Solarspace vs AKCOME - solar panel manufacturer comparison

AKCOME (Jiangsu Akcome Science and Technology, founded 2003) and Solarspace (founded 2011) are both Chinese PV manufacturers, but their institutional standing diverges sharply. Solarspace carries a Tier 1 BNEF bankability designation - it rejoined the list in Q2 2024 - and reports a production capacity of 60+ GW of cells and more than 6,000 employees, giving it the scale and financing track record that lenders and project developers typically require. AKCOME, by contrast, is not Tier 1 bankable, was delisted from the Shenzhen Stock Exchange in August 2024 after its share price collapsed, and has undergone bankruptcy reorganization proceedings in several subsidiaries. For any buyer where project financing or long-term warranty backstop matters, Solarspace carries the substantially stronger institutional footprint.

On portfolio character the two companies diverge in technology emphasis and panel sizing. AKCOME's small catalog of three modules is built entirely on HJT cells, delivering an average module efficiency of 21.6% and an average output of 672 Wp, peaking at 700 Wp. Its temperature coefficient of -0.24%/°C per degree is notably low, which benefits installations in hot climates where thermal losses are a concern, and every panel in the range is bifacial with a 30-year average warranty. Solarspace fields a much broader 82-module lineup anchored by N-type technology (roughly 70% of panels use TOPCon), achieves a slightly higher average efficiency of 22.0% with a top of 23.16%, and reaches 710 Wp at the high end of its range. Its temperature coefficient of -0.30%/°C is less favorable than AKCOME's, and 93% of its panels are bifacial backed by a near-30-year warranty. AKCOME's higher-wattage modules suit utility or large commercial ground-mount buyers seeking large-format HJT output, while Solarspace's broad lineup serves residential through utility segments.

For a typical buyer in 2025, Solarspace is the clearer default choice. AKCOME's HJT specifications are genuinely competitive, but the company's financial distress, stock delisting, and absence from the Tier 1 list introduce bankability and warranty longevity risks that few project financiers or cautious residential buyers would accept when a certified Tier 1 alternative is available.

Generated by Claude Sonnet · 2026-05-11