Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) vs Jasminer X16-Q
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) | Specification | Jasminer X16-Q |
|---|---|---|
| 9.0 GH/s | Taux de hachage | 1,950.0 MH/s |
| 2,340 W | Consommation électrique | 620 W |
| 260,000.0 J/TH | Efficiency | 317,948.7 J/TH |
| 75 dB | Niveau de bruit | 40 dB |
| 14.2 kg | Weight | 10.0 kg |
| 7,984 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 2,115 BTU/hr |
| 40/100 | Home Mining Score | 65/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| EtHash | Algorithme | EtHash |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | Jasminer |
Profitability Comparison
Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh)
Jasminer X16-Q
Based on BTC price of $78,226 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Selon notre analyse multifactorielle, le Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) l'emporte sur 3 des 6 facteurs (efficacité, hashrate, rapport qualité-prix). Its biggest concrete edge: 362% more hashrate (0.0 vs 0.0 TH/s). That said, the Jasminer X16-Q isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins 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
The Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) and Jasminer X16-Q diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) 362% more hashrate (0.0 vs 0.0 TH/s)
- Jasminer X16-Q 74% better power draw (2,340 vs 620 W)
- Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) 18% better efficacité (260,000 vs 317,949 J/TH)
- Jasminer X16-Q 47% better noise (75.0 vs 40.0 dB)
- Jasminer X16-Q 30% better weight (14.2 vs 10.0 kg)
- Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) 277% more heat output (7,984 vs 2,115 BTU/hr)
- Jasminer X16-Q 63% more score de minage domestique (40.0 vs 65.0)
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.
| Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) | Metric | Jasminer X16-Q |
|---|---|---|
| $5,399 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $3,500 |
| -$5.62 | Daily net profit | -$1.49 |
| -$7,449 | Net after 1 year | -$4,043 |
| -$9,498 | Net after 2 years | -$4,586 |
| -$11,548 | Net after 3 years | -$5,129 |
| 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
Jasminer X16-QScore: 65/100. 40 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh)260,000.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) vs Jasminer X16-Q: which one earns more per day?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Jasminer X16-Q is more profitable at $-1.49/day compared to $-5.62/day for the Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Is the Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) or the Jasminer X16-Q better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The Jasminer X16-Q is quieter at 40 dB compared to the Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) at 75 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Which is better for home mining, the Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) or Jasminer X16-Q?
The Jasminer X16-Q scores 65/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 40/100 for the Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh)). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
How far apart are the Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) and Jasminer X16-Q on J/TH?
The Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) runs at 260,000.0 J/TH while the Jasminer X16-Q runs at 317,948.7 J/TH — a difference of 57,948.7 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 18% better efficacité (260,000 vs 317,949 J/TH).