Antminer E9 Pro vs Bitmain Antminer L7 (9.16Gh)
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Antminer E9 Pro | Specification | Bitmain Antminer L7 (9.16Gh) |
|---|---|---|
| 3,680.0 MH/s | Taux de hachage | 9.2 GH/s |
| 2,200 W | Consommation électrique | 3,425 W |
| 597,826.1 J/TH | Efficiency | 373,908.3 J/TH |
| 75 dB | Niveau de bruit | — |
| 14.2 kg | Weight | 15,000.0 kg |
| 7,506 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 11,686 BTU/hr |
| 40/100 | Home Mining Score | 22/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| EtHash | Algorithme | Scrypt |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | Bitmain |
Profitability Comparison
Antminer E9 Pro
Bitmain Antminer L7 (9.16Gh)
Based on BTC price of $78,237 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Selon notre analyse multifactorielle, le Bitmain Antminer L7 (9.16Gh) l'emporte sur 3 des 6 facteurs (efficacité, hashrate, rapport qualité-prix). Where it pulls away hardest is 149% more hashrate (0.0 vs 0.0 TH/s). The Antminer E9 Pro holds the edge in consommation électrique and score de minage domestique and 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 Antminer E9 Pro and Bitmain Antminer L7 (9.16Gh) sit on each measurable spec:
- Bitmain Antminer L7 (9.16Gh) 149% more hashrate (0.0 vs 0.0 TH/s)
- Antminer E9 Pro 36% better power draw (2,200 vs 3,425 W)
- Bitmain Antminer L7 (9.16Gh) 37% better efficacité (597,826 vs 373,908 J/TH)
- Antminer E9 Pro 100% better weight (14.2 vs 15,000.0 kg)
- Bitmain Antminer L7 (9.16Gh) 56% more heat output (7,506 vs 11,686 BTU/hr)
- Antminer E9 Pro 82% more score de minage domestique (40.0 vs 22.0)
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.
| Antminer E9 Pro | Metric | Bitmain Antminer L7 (9.16Gh) |
|---|---|---|
| $3,000 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $1,599 |
| -$5.28 | Daily net profit | -$8.22 |
| -$4,927 | Net after 1 year | -$4,599 |
| -$6,854 | Net after 2 years | -$7,599 |
| -$8,781 | Net after 3 years | -$10,600 |
| 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
Antminer E9 ProScore: 40/100. 75 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Bitmain Antminer L7 (9.16Gh)373,908.3 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Antminer E9 Pro or Bitmain Antminer L7 (9.16Gh) more profitable?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Antminer E9 Pro is more profitable at $-5.28/day compared to $-8.22/day for the Bitmain Antminer L7 (9.16Gh). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Is the Antminer E9 Pro or the Bitmain Antminer L7 (9.16Gh) better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The Antminer E9 Pro is quieter at 75 dB compared to the Bitmain Antminer L7 (9.16Gh) at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
For mining at home, should I pick the Antminer E9 Pro or the Bitmain Antminer L7 (9.16Gh)?
The Antminer E9 Pro scores 40/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 22/100 for the Bitmain Antminer L7 (9.16Gh)). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
How far apart are the Antminer E9 Pro and Bitmain Antminer L7 (9.16Gh) on J/TH?
The Antminer E9 Pro runs at 597,826.1 J/TH while the Bitmain Antminer L7 (9.16Gh) runs at 373,908.3 J/TH — a difference of 223,917.8 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 37% better efficacité (597,826 vs 373,908 J/TH).