Goldshell AE-BOX II vs Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Goldshell AE-BOX II | Specification | Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite |
|---|---|---|
| 54.0 MH/s | Taux de hachage | 300.0 MH/s |
| 530 W | Consommation électrique | 500 W |
| 9,814,814.8 J/TH | Efficiency | 1,666,666.7 J/TH |
| 35 dB | Niveau de bruit | 45 dB |
| 3.0 kg | Weight | 4.0 kg |
| 1,808 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 1,706 BTU/hr |
| 65/100 | Home Mining Score | 62/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Zksnark | Algorithme | Zksnark |
| Goldshell | Manufacturer | IceRiver |
Profitability Comparison
Goldshell AE-BOX II
Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite
Based on BTC price of $78,083 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Our scoring model gives the nod to the Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite, which leads on 2 of 5 weighted factors (efficacité, consommation électrique). The standout gap is 83% better efficacité (9,814,815 vs 1,666,667 J/TH) in the Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite's favour. The Goldshell AE-BOX II claws back ground on score de minage domestique and niveau sonore and rapport qualité-prix. The right pick still depends on your power cost and noise tolerance — the breakdowns above make that call concrete.
Spec Deltas
Here is every spec where the Goldshell AE-BOX II and Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite actually differ, with the gap quantified:
- Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite 456% more hashrate (0.0 vs 0.0 TH/s)
- Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite 6% better power draw (530 vs 500 W)
- Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite 83% better efficacité (9,814,815 vs 1,666,667 J/TH)
- Goldshell AE-BOX II 22% better noise (35.0 vs 45.0 dB)
- Goldshell AE-BOX II 27% better weight (3.0 vs 4.0 kg)
- Goldshell AE-BOX II 6% more heat output (1,808 vs 1,706 BTU/hr)
- Goldshell AE-BOX II 5% more score de minage domestique (65.0 vs 62.0)
Cost & ROI Over Time
A miner pays for itself in profit, not specs. These projections track upfront cost against one, two and three years of net earnings at $0.10/kWh.
| Goldshell AE-BOX II | Metric | Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite |
|---|---|---|
| $120 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $979 |
| -$1.27 | Daily net profit | -$1.20 |
| -$584 | Net after 1 year | -$1,417 |
| -$1,049 | Net after 2 years | -$1,855 |
| -$1,513 | Net after 3 years | -$2,293 |
| Does not pay back at current rates (negative daily profit) | Payback period | Does not pay back at current rates (negative daily profit) |
Projections assume continuous operation, a flat $0.10/kWh rate, and no hardware degradation, pool fees, or BTC price change. Real-world ROI varies.
Best For...
Best for Profitability
TieBoth miners produce similar daily profit.
Best for Home Mining
Goldshell AE-BOX IIScore: 65/100. 35 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite1,666,666.7 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Goldshell AE-BOX II or Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite more profitable?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite is more profitable at $-1.20/day compared to $-1.27/day for the Goldshell AE-BOX II. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Which is quieter, the Goldshell AE-BOX II or Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite?
The Goldshell AE-BOX II is quieter at 35 dB compared to the Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite at 45 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Goldshell AE-BOX II vs Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite: which fits a residential setup better?
The Goldshell AE-BOX II scores 65/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 62/100 for the Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
What is the efficiency difference between Goldshell AE-BOX II and Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite?
The Goldshell AE-BOX II runs at 9,814,814.8 J/TH while the Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite runs at 1,666,666.7 J/TH — a difference of 8,148,148.1 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 83% better efficacité (9,814,815 vs 1,666,667 J/TH).