Antminer E9 Pro vs iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 280
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Antminer E9 Pro | Specification | iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 280 |
|---|---|---|
| 3,680.0 MH/s | Taux de hachage | 280.0 MH/s |
| 2,200 W | Consommation électrique | 220 W |
| 597,826.1 J/TH | Efficiency | 785,714.3 J/TH |
| 75 dB | Niveau de bruit | 40 dB |
| 14.2 kg | Weight | 2.1 kg |
| 7,506 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 751 BTU/hr |
| 40/100 | Home Mining Score | 66/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| EtHash | Algorithme | EtHash |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | iPollo |
Profitability Comparison
Antminer E9 Pro
iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 280
Based on BTC price of $63,093 and current network difficulty as of Jun 4, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Our scoring model gives the nod to the Antminer E9 Pro, which leads on 3 of 6 weighted factors (efficacité, hashrate, rapport qualité-prix). Where it pulls away hardest is 1214% more hashrate (0.0 vs 0.0 TH/s). That said, the iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 280 isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins consommation électrique and score de minage domestique and niveau sonore. Cross-check the spec deltas and operating-cost table above against your own electricity rate before deciding.
Spec Deltas
The Antminer E9 Pro and iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 280 diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- Antminer E9 Pro 1214% more hashrate (0.0 vs 0.0 TH/s)
- iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 280 90% better power draw (2,200 vs 220 W)
- Antminer E9 Pro 24% better efficacité (597,826 vs 785,714 J/TH)
- iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 280 47% better noise (75.0 vs 40.0 dB)
- iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 280 85% better weight (14.2 vs 2.1 kg)
- Antminer E9 Pro 900% more heat output (7,506 vs 751 BTU/hr)
- iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 280 65% more score de minage domestique (40.0 vs 66.0)
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.
| Antminer E9 Pro | Metric | iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 280 |
|---|---|---|
| $3,000 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $700 |
| -$5.28 | Daily net profit | -$0.53 |
| -$4,927 | Net after 1 year | -$893 |
| -$6,854 | Net after 2 years | -$1,085 |
| -$8,781 | Net after 3 years | -$1,278 |
| 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
iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 280Score: 66/100. 40 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Antminer E9 Pro597,826.1 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which makes more money, the Antminer E9 Pro or the iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 280?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 280 is more profitable at $-0.53/day compared to $-5.28/day for the Antminer E9 Pro. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Is the Antminer E9 Pro or the iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 280 better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 280 is quieter at 40 dB compared to the Antminer E9 Pro at 75 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Which is better for home mining, the Antminer E9 Pro or iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 280?
The iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 280 scores 66/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 40/100 for the Antminer E9 Pro). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
Antminer E9 Pro vs iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 280: how much does the efficiency gap matter?
The Antminer E9 Pro runs at 597,826.1 J/TH while the iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 280 runs at 785,714.3 J/TH — a difference of 187,888.2 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 24% better efficacité (597,826 vs 785,714 J/TH).