Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite vs Iceriver KAS KS5M
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite | Specification | Iceriver KAS KS5M |
|---|---|---|
| 300.0 MH/s | Taux de hachage | 15.0 TH/s |
| 500 W | Consommation électrique | 3,400 W |
| 1,666,666.7 J/TH | Efficiency | 226.7 J/TH |
| 45 dB | Niveau de bruit | 75 dB |
| 4.0 kg | Weight | 15.0 kg |
| 1,706 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 11,601 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 KS5M
Based on BTC price of $78,195 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Weighing six performance factors, the Iceriver KAS KS5M comes out ahead — it takes 3 of 6 (efficacité, hashrate, rapport qualité-prix). Its biggest concrete edge: 4999900% more hashrate (0.0 vs 15.0 TH/s). The Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite holds the edge in consommation électrique and score de minage domestique and niveau sonore. Review the detailed specs and profitability calculations above to determine which miner best fits your specific setup.
Spec Deltas
Stripped to the numbers, this is how far apart the Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite and Iceriver KAS KS5M sit on each measurable spec:
- Iceriver KAS KS5M 4999900% more hashrate (0.0 vs 15.0 TH/s)
- Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite 85% better power draw (500 vs 3,400 W)
- Iceriver KAS KS5M 100% better efficacité (1,666,667 vs 227 J/TH)
- Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite 40% better noise (45.0 vs 75.0 dB)
- Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite 73% better weight (4.0 vs 15.0 kg)
- Iceriver KAS KS5M 580% more heat output (1,706 vs 11,601 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 KS5M |
|---|---|---|
| $979 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $449 |
| -$1.20 | Daily net profit | -$7.62 |
| -$1,417 | Net after 1 year | -$3,230 |
| -$1,855 | Net after 2 years | -$6,012 |
| -$2,293 | Net after 3 years | -$8,793 |
| 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 KS5M226.7 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite or Iceriver KAS KS5M 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 $-7.62/day for the Iceriver KAS KS5M. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite vs Iceriver KAS KS5M: which runs at a lower noise level?
The Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite is quieter at 45 dB compared to the Iceriver KAS KS5M at 75 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite vs Iceriver KAS KS5M: 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 KS5M). 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 Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite and Iceriver KAS KS5M?
The Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite runs at 1,666,666.7 J/TH while the Iceriver KAS KS5M runs at 226.7 J/TH — a difference of 1,666,440.0 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 227 J/TH).