Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) vs Iceriver KAS KS7 Lite
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) | Specification | Iceriver KAS KS7 Lite |
|---|---|---|
| 2.0 GH/s | Taux de hachage | 4.2 TH/s |
| 3,580 W | Consommation électrique | 500 W |
| 1,790,000.0 J/TH | Efficiency | 119.1 J/TH |
| 75 dB | Niveau de bruit | 50 dB |
| 15.0 kg | Weight | 4.0 kg |
| 12,215 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 1,706 BTU/hr |
| 30/100 | Home Mining Score | 62/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Zksnark | Algorithme | KHeavyHash |
| IceRiver | Manufacturer | IceRiver |
Profitability Comparison
Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s)
Iceriver KAS KS7 Lite
Based on BTC price of $78,210 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Weighing six performance factors, the Iceriver KAS KS7 Lite comes out ahead — it takes 6 of 6 (efficacité, hashrate, consommation électrique, score de minage domestique, niveau sonore, rapport qualité-prix). Where it pulls away hardest is 100% better efficacité (1,790,000 vs 119 J/TH). 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 KS7 Lite sit on each measurable spec:
- Iceriver KAS KS7 Lite 209900% more hashrate (0.0 vs 4.2 TH/s)
- Iceriver KAS KS7 Lite 86% better power draw (3,580 vs 500 W)
- Iceriver KAS KS7 Lite 100% better efficacité (1,790,000 vs 119 J/TH)
- Iceriver KAS KS7 Lite 33% better noise (75.0 vs 50.0 dB)
- Iceriver KAS KS7 Lite 73% better weight (15.0 vs 4.0 kg)
- Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) 616% more heat output (12,215 vs 1,706 BTU/hr)
- Iceriver KAS KS7 Lite 107% more score de minage domestique (30.0 vs 62.0)
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 AE3 (2Gh/s) | Metric | Iceriver KAS KS7 Lite |
|---|---|---|
| $5,390 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $699 |
| -$8.59 | Daily net profit | -$1.05 |
| -$8,526 | Net after 1 year | -$1,082 |
| -$11,662 | Net after 2 years | -$1,465 |
| -$14,798 | Net after 3 years | -$1,847 |
| 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 KS7 LiteScore: 62/100. 50 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Iceriver KAS KS7 Lite119.1 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) vs Iceriver KAS KS7 Lite: which one earns more per day?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Iceriver KAS KS7 Lite is more profitable at $-1.05/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.
Is the Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) or the Iceriver KAS KS7 Lite better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The Iceriver KAS KS7 Lite is quieter at 50 dB compared to the Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) at 75 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 KS7 Lite?
The Iceriver KAS KS7 Lite scores 62/100 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 KS7 Lite?
The Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) runs at 1,790,000.0 J/TH while the Iceriver KAS KS7 Lite runs at 119.1 J/TH — a difference of 1,789,881.0 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 119 J/TH).