No. It's huge difference. It's fundamental physics as opposed to the application of an utterly commoditized technology. One begets the other, but they are worlds apart.
And that's always been the crux of this whole concept (Solar Freak'n Roadways or SolaRoad).
They are not doing research on making more efficient solar panels, or finding more efficient ways to implement it. They are instead researching ways to take the worst possible way to implement an existing technology to somehow make it viable. It's a fundamentally dumb idea. Apart from possibly having some appeal in some niche applications of course.
But to think that this idea is going to be viable and a benefit to society on a global scale is demonstrably laughable.
Did anybody divide the cost to build that silly bikepath by the average long-term power output?
It cost a staggering $5000 per watt!
Residential solar rooftop installs in the US are running around $5 per watt! And I imagine the installation costs would be far less if you put the panels on the ground (properly angled, of course). Like we see in the desert in western Arizona.
So to just break even with rooftop they're going to need a factor of 1000 improvement.
Now, sure, this was a first-time effort. The way of using solar panels under a walkable surface had to be developed, etc., etc. Once the methods were established we could expect costs to fall.
But... by a factor of 1000?
Note: developments in better solar panels will not help with that, because
any such development can be applied equally well to rooftop solar. Thus solar panel improvements will not contribute one iota to the needed factor of 1000. They'll have to make it up elsewhere. Good luck with that.