Antminer Loki Edition (S9) vs Canaan Avalon Q
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Antminer Loki Edition (S9) | Specification | Canaan Avalon Q |
|---|---|---|
| 14.0 TH/s | Taux de hachage | 90.0 TH/s |
| 1,350 W | Consommation électrique | 1,674 W |
| 96.4 J/TH | Efficiency | 18.6 J/TH |
| 55 dB | Niveau de bruit | 45 dB |
| 6.0 kg | Weight | 10.5 kg |
| 4,606 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 5,712 BTU/hr |
| 59/100 | Home Mining Score | 56/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithme | SHA-256 |
| D-Central | Manufacturer | Canaan |
Profitability Comparison
Antminer Loki Edition (S9)
Canaan Avalon Q
Based on BTC price of $78,241 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Our scoring model gives the nod to the Canaan Avalon Q, which leads on 4 of 6 weighted factors (efficacité, hashrate, niveau sonore, rapport qualité-prix). Its biggest concrete edge: 543% more hashrate (14.0 vs 90.0 TH/s). That said, the Antminer Loki Edition (S9) isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins consommation électrique and score de minage domestique. 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 Loki Edition (S9) and Canaan Avalon Q sit on each measurable spec:
- Canaan Avalon Q 543% more hashrate (14.0 vs 90.0 TH/s)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 19% better power draw (1,350 vs 1,674 W)
- Canaan Avalon Q 81% better efficacité (96.4 vs 18.6 J/TH)
- Canaan Avalon Q 18% better noise (55.0 vs 45.0 dB)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 43% better weight (6.0 vs 10.5 kg)
- Canaan Avalon Q 24% more heat output (4,606 vs 5,712 BTU/hr)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 5% more score de minage domestique (59.0 vs 56.0)
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 Loki Edition (S9) | Metric | Canaan Avalon Q |
|---|---|---|
| $349 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $1,292 |
| -$2.74 | Daily net profit | -$0.78 |
| -$1,348 | Net after 1 year | -$1,575 |
| -$2,346 | Net after 2 years | -$1,859 |
| -$3,345 | Net after 3 years | -$2,143 |
| 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 Loki Edition (S9)Score: 59/100. 55 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Canaan Avalon Q18.6 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Antminer Loki Edition (S9) or Canaan Avalon Q more profitable?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Canaan Avalon Q is more profitable at $-0.78/day compared to $-2.74/day for the Antminer Loki Edition (S9). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Antminer Loki Edition (S9) vs Canaan Avalon Q: which runs at a lower noise level?
The Canaan Avalon Q is quieter at 45 dB compared to the Antminer Loki Edition (S9) at 55 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Which is better for home mining, the Antminer Loki Edition (S9) or Canaan Avalon Q?
The Antminer Loki Edition (S9) scores 59/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 56/100 for the Canaan Avalon Q). 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 Loki Edition (S9) and Canaan Avalon Q on J/TH?
The Antminer Loki Edition (S9) runs at 96.4 J/TH while the Canaan Avalon Q runs at 18.6 J/TH — a difference of 77.8 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 81% better efficacité (96.4 vs 18.6 J/TH).