Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) vs iPollo V1 Mini SE
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) | Specification | iPollo V1 Mini SE |
|---|---|---|
| 9.0 GH/s | Taux de hachage | 220.0 MH/s |
| 2,340 W | Consommation électrique | 116 W |
| 260,000.0 J/TH | Efficiency | 527,272.7 J/TH |
| 75 dB | Niveau de bruit | — |
| 14.2 kg | Weight | 2.1 kg |
| 7,984 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 396 BTU/hr |
| 40/100 | Home Mining Score | 30/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| EtHash | Algorithme | EtHash |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | iPollo |
Profitability Comparison
Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh)
iPollo V1 Mini SE
Based on BTC price of $78,195 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Run the numbers across every spec and the Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) edges it: 5 of 6 factors go its way (efficacité, hashrate, score de minage domestique, niveau sonore, rapport qualité-prix). The standout gap is 3991% more hashrate (0.0 vs 0.0 TH/s) in the Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh)'s favour. That said, the iPollo V1 Mini SE isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins consommation électrique. 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 Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) and iPollo V1 Mini SE sit on each measurable spec:
- Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) 3991% more hashrate (0.0 vs 0.0 TH/s)
- iPollo V1 Mini SE 95% better power draw (2,340 vs 116 W)
- Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) 51% better efficacité (260,000 vs 527,273 J/TH)
- iPollo V1 Mini SE 85% better weight (14.2 vs 2.1 kg)
- Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) 1917% more heat output (7,984 vs 396 BTU/hr)
- Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) 33% more score de minage domestique (40.0 vs 30.0)
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 | iPollo V1 Mini SE |
|---|---|---|
| $5,399 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $279 |
| -$5.62 | Daily net profit | -$0.28 |
| -$7,449 | Net after 1 year | -$381 |
| -$9,498 | Net after 2 years | -$482 |
| -$11,548 | Net after 3 years | -$584 |
| 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
Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh)Score: 40/100. 75 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 iPollo V1 Mini SE: which one earns more per day?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the iPollo V1 Mini SE is more profitable at $-0.28/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.
Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) vs iPollo V1 Mini SE: which runs at a lower noise level?
The Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) is quieter at 75 dB compared to the iPollo V1 Mini SE at 0 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 iPollo V1 Mini SE?
The Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) scores 40/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 30/100 for the iPollo V1 Mini SE). 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 iPollo V1 Mini SE on J/TH?
The Bitmain Antminer E11 (9Gh) runs at 260,000.0 J/TH while the iPollo V1 Mini SE runs at 527,272.7 J/TH — a difference of 267,272.7 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 51% better efficacité (260,000 vs 527,273 J/TH).