Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite vs Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite | Specification | Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| 300.0 MH/s | Taux de hachage | 200.0 GH/s |
| 500 W | Consommation électrique | 100 W |
| 1,666,666.7 J/TH | Efficiency | 500.0 J/TH |
| 45 dB | Niveau de bruit | — |
| 4.0 kg | Weight | 2.5 kg |
| 1,706 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 341 BTU/hr |
| 62/100 | Home Mining Score | 36/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Zksnark | Algorithme | KHeavyHash |
| IceRiver | Manufacturer | IceRiver |
Profitability Comparison
Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite
Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro
Based on BTC price of $78,237 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Our scoring model gives the nod to the Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro, which leads on 4 of 6 weighted factors (efficacité, hashrate, consommation électrique, rapport qualité-prix). Its biggest concrete edge: 100% better efficacité (1,666,667 vs 500 J/TH). That said, the Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins score de minage domestique and niveau sonore. The right pick still depends on your power cost and noise tolerance — the breakdowns above make that call concrete.
Spec Deltas
Stripped to the numbers, this is how far apart the Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite and Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro sit on each measurable spec:
- Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro 66567% more hashrate (0.0 vs 0.2 TH/s)
- Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro 80% better power draw (500 vs 100 W)
- Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro 100% better efficacité (1,666,667 vs 500 J/TH)
- Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro 38% better weight (4.0 vs 2.5 kg)
- Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite 400% more heat output (1,706 vs 341 BTU/hr)
- Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite 72% more score de minage domestique (62.0 vs 36.0)
Cost & ROI Over Time
Hardware cost is only half the story — here is how each miner's upfront price plays out against cumulative profit at a $0.10/kWh rate.
| Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite | Metric | Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| $979 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $79 |
| -$1.20 | Daily net profit | -$0.23 |
| -$1,417 | Net after 1 year | -$164 |
| -$1,855 | Net after 2 years | -$249 |
| -$2,293 | Net after 3 years | -$334 |
| 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
Iceriver ALEO AE1 LiteScore: 62/100. 45 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro500.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite vs Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro: which one earns more per day?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro is more profitable at $-0.23/day compared to $-1.20/day for the Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite vs Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro: which runs at a lower noise level?
The Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite is quieter at 45 dB compared to the Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite vs Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro: which fits a residential setup better?
The Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite scores 62/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 36/100 for the Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
How far apart are the Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite and Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro on J/TH?
The Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite runs at 1,666,666.7 J/TH while the Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro runs at 500.0 J/TH — a difference of 1,666,166.7 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 100% better efficacité (1,666,667 vs 500 J/TH).