Antminer Loki Edition (S9) vs Whatsminer M66S
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Antminer Loki Edition (S9) | Specification | Whatsminer M66S |
|---|---|---|
| 14.0 TH/s | Taux de hachage | 298.0 TH/s |
| 1,350 W | Consommation électrique | 5,518 W |
| 96.4 J/TH | Efficiency | 18.5 J/TH |
| 55 dB | Niveau de bruit | 50 dB |
| 6.0 kg | Weight | 13.5 kg |
| 4,606 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 18,827 BTU/hr |
| 59/100 | Home Mining Score | 44/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithme | SHA-256 |
| D-Central | Manufacturer | MicroBT |
Profitability Comparison
Antminer Loki Edition (S9)
Whatsminer M66S
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 Whatsminer M66S, which leads on 3 of 6 weighted factors (efficacité, hashrate, niveau sonore). The standout gap is 2029% more hashrate (14.0 vs 298.0 TH/s) in the Whatsminer M66S's favour. That said, the Antminer Loki Edition (S9) isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins consommation électrique and score de minage domestique and rapport qualité-prix. Cross-check the spec deltas and ROI table above against your own electricity rate before deciding.
Spec Deltas
The Antminer Loki Edition (S9) and Whatsminer M66S diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- Whatsminer M66S 2029% more hashrate (14.0 vs 298.0 TH/s)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 76% better power draw (1,350 vs 5,518 W)
- Whatsminer M66S 81% better efficacité (96.4 vs 18.5 J/TH)
- Whatsminer M66S 9% better noise (55.0 vs 50.0 dB)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 56% better weight (6.0 vs 13.5 kg)
- Whatsminer M66S 309% more heat output (4,606 vs 18,827 BTU/hr)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 34% more score de minage domestique (59.0 vs 44.0)
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 Loki Edition (S9) | Metric | Whatsminer M66S |
|---|---|---|
| $349 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $8,000 |
| -$2.74 | Daily net profit | -$2.51 |
| -$1,348 | Net after 1 year | -$8,917 |
| -$2,346 | Net after 2 years | -$9,835 |
| -$3,345 | Net after 3 years | -$10,752 |
| 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
Whatsminer M66S18.5 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Antminer Loki Edition (S9) or Whatsminer M66S more profitable?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Whatsminer M66S is more profitable at $-2.51/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.
Is the Antminer Loki Edition (S9) or the Whatsminer M66S better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The Whatsminer M66S is quieter at 50 dB compared to the Antminer Loki Edition (S9) at 55 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Antminer Loki Edition (S9) vs Whatsminer M66S: which fits a residential setup better?
The Antminer Loki Edition (S9) scores 59/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 44/100 for the Whatsminer M66S). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
Antminer Loki Edition (S9) vs Whatsminer M66S: how much does the efficiency gap matter?
The Antminer Loki Edition (S9) runs at 96.4 J/TH while the Whatsminer M66S runs at 18.5 J/TH — a difference of 77.9 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 18.5 J/TH).