It's poorly worded but anyone that thinks panels are anything close to 95% wasn't paying attention. Even hydro power which just gravity and a turbine barely achieves 95%

No.

The title implies that, somehow, colored solar panels hit 95% efficiency, compared to panels that are not colored. To be clear, it should say:

"Colored solar panels that mimic tiles roof achieve 95% of the efficiency of regular solar tiles"

Colored solar panels that mimic tiles roof hit 95% efficiency compared to regular solar tiles

Do they hit 95% of regular solar tiles efficiency? Or do they hit 95% efficiency, while regular solar tiles hit (presumably) less?

It is a clickbait title because it offers more than one interpretation. One is reasonable (and correct), but not punchy. The other is outlandish (and wrong) but draws the reader in on the off chance that it might be right. Hence the subsequent disappointment in the headline.

If you only see the "correct" interpretation, more power to you: you weren't baited and thus had nothing to be disappointed by.

But the headline is, objectively, phrased to bait the click from a wide swath of readers who question if the "incorrect" interpretation just might be true.

It's poorly worded to mislead into "actual efficiency". People looking at solar panels need the real number, not how it compares to traditional ones. This is at worst misleadingly worded, or at best, poor journalism.

Oh, didn't knew you added that.

I appreciate it, but if you'd welcome some feedback next time you might want to do that in [square brackets] to make it clear