Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) vs Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) | Specification | Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| 2.0 GH/s | Taux de hachage | 200.0 GH/s |
| 3,580 W | Consommation électrique | 100 W |
| 1,790,000.0 J/TH | Efficiency | 500.0 J/TH |
| 75 dB | Niveau de bruit | — |
| 15.0 kg | Weight | 2.5 kg |
| 12,215 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 341 BTU/hr |
| 30/100 | Home Mining Score | 36/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Zksnark | Algorithme | KHeavyHash |
| IceRiver | Manufacturer | IceRiver |
Profitability Comparison
Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s)
Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro
Based on BTC price of $78,237 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Run the numbers across every spec and the Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro edges it: 5 of 6 factors go its way (efficacité, hashrate, consommation électrique, score de minage domestique, rapport qualité-prix). Its biggest concrete edge: 100% better efficacité (1,790,000 vs 500 J/TH). The Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) claws back ground on niveau sonore. Cross-check the spec deltas and ROI table above against your own electricity rate before deciding.
Spec Deltas
Stripped to the numbers, this is how far apart the Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) and Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro sit on each measurable spec:
- Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro 9900% more hashrate (0.0 vs 0.2 TH/s)
- Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro 97% better power draw (3,580 vs 100 W)
- Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro 100% better efficacité (1,790,000 vs 500 J/TH)
- Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro 83% better weight (15.0 vs 2.5 kg)
- Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) 3480% more heat output (12,215 vs 341 BTU/hr)
- Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro 20% more score de minage domestique (30.0 vs 36.0)
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.
| Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) | Metric | Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| $5,390 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $79 |
| -$8.59 | Daily net profit | -$0.23 |
| -$8,526 | Net after 1 year | -$164 |
| -$11,662 | Net after 2 years | -$249 |
| -$14,798 | 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 KAS KS0 ProScore: 36/100. 0 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro500.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) 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 $-8.59/day for the Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) vs Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro: which runs at a lower noise level?
The Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) is quieter at 75 dB compared to the Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
For mining at home, should I pick the Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) or the Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro?
The Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro scores 36/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 30/100 for the Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s)). 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 AE3 (2Gh/s) and Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro?
The Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) runs at 1,790,000.0 J/TH while the Iceriver KAS KS0 Pro runs at 500.0 J/TH — a difference of 1,789,500.0 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 100% better efficacité (1,790,000 vs 500 J/TH).