Antminer E9 Pro vs iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 330
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Antminer E9 Pro | Specification | iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 330 |
|---|---|---|
| 3,680.0 MH/s | Taux de hachage | 330.0 MH/s |
| 2,200 W | Consommation électrique | 240 W |
| 597,826.1 J/TH | Efficiency | 727,272.7 J/TH |
| 75 dB | Niveau de bruit | 40 dB |
| 14.2 kg | Weight | 2.4 kg |
| 7,506 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 819 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 330
Based on BTC price of $78,210 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 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 1015% more hashrate (0.0 vs 0.0 TH/s). The iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 330 claws back ground on 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 Antminer E9 Pro and iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 330 diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- Antminer E9 Pro 1015% more hashrate (0.0 vs 0.0 TH/s)
- iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 330 89% better power draw (2,200 vs 240 W)
- Antminer E9 Pro 18% better efficacité (597,826 vs 727,273 J/TH)
- iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 330 47% better noise (75.0 vs 40.0 dB)
- iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 330 83% better weight (14.2 vs 2.4 kg)
- Antminer E9 Pro 817% more heat output (7,506 vs 819 BTU/hr)
- iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 330 65% more score de minage domestique (40.0 vs 66.0)
Cost & ROI Over Time
Sticker price versus what the miner actually earns back: the table below projects cumulative net profit at a $0.10/kWh electricity rate.
| Antminer E9 Pro | Metric | iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 330 |
|---|---|---|
| $3,000 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $899 |
| -$5.28 | Daily net profit | -$0.58 |
| -$4,927 | Net after 1 year | -$1,109 |
| -$6,854 | Net after 2 years | -$1,319 |
| -$8,781 | Net after 3 years | -$1,530 |
| 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 330Score: 66/100. 40 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Antminer E9 Pro597,826.1 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Antminer E9 Pro or iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 330 more profitable?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 330 is more profitable at $-0.58/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 330 better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 330 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.
Antminer E9 Pro vs iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 330: which fits a residential setup better?
The iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 330 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 330: how much does the efficiency gap matter?
The Antminer E9 Pro runs at 597,826.1 J/TH while the iPollo V1 Mini Wifi 330 runs at 727,272.7 J/TH — a difference of 129,446.6 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 18% better efficacité (597,826 vs 727,273 J/TH).