When you click over to the 100W and multiply Vmp * Imp, you get 99.9W, so the math works on the 100W, but it doesn't on the 195W.
I would challenge that those panels meet claimed spec, or there is a typo on the webpages. If you have the panels, check the label.
If they really do meet spec, then it's likely their Isc is OVER 10A. Three in parallel would be > 30A.
Series/parallel decision is more influenced by PARTIAL shading, i.e., where one panel might be partially shaded. If you anticipate all 3 panels will be completely shaded or partially shaded, series might be the better choice.
First and foremost, I'm confident that the specifications on the 100W panel and the published specs meet the rating. The inconsistent numbers (even on ECO-Worthy's own site), give me pause on the 195W. I would not spend $ on those panels without resolving.
A 2S3P would definitely be equal to or better than the 3P 195W. You'd get the benefit of 200W per series but at 2X the voltage for some MPPT benefit. You would also have the same shading tolerance and about an 18A peak current.
A 3S2P would reduce current and increase voltage at the expense of partial shading tolerance.
Personally, if partial shading is a big concern, I'd go 2S3P 100W given the options discussed.