Bitmain Antminer S17 (53Th) vs Canaan Avalon Mini 3
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Bitmain Antminer S17 (53Th) | Specification | Canaan Avalon Mini 3 |
|---|---|---|
| 53.0 TH/s | Taux de hachage | 37.5 TH/s |
| 2,385 W | Consommation électrique | 800 W |
| 45.0 J/TH | Efficiency | 21.3 J/TH |
| — | Niveau de bruit | 33 dB |
| 9,500.0 kg | Weight | 8.4 kg |
| 8,138 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 2,730 BTU/hr |
| 26/100 | Home Mining Score | 65/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithme | SHA-256 |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | Canaan |
Profitability Comparison
Bitmain Antminer S17 (53Th)
Canaan Avalon Mini 3
Based on BTC price of $78,128 and current network difficulty as of May 17, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Run the numbers across every spec and the Canaan Avalon Mini 3 edges it: 4 of 6 factors go its way (efficacité, consommation électrique, score de minage domestique, niveau sonore). Its biggest concrete edge: 66% better power draw (2,385 vs 800 W). The Bitmain Antminer S17 (53Th) holds the edge in hashrate and rapport qualité-prix. Review the detailed specs and profitability calculations above to determine which miner best fits your specific setup.
Spec Deltas
The Bitmain Antminer S17 (53Th) and Canaan Avalon Mini 3 diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- Bitmain Antminer S17 (53Th) 41% more hashrate (53.0 vs 37.5 TH/s)
- Canaan Avalon Mini 3 66% better power draw (2,385 vs 800 W)
- Canaan Avalon Mini 3 53% better efficacité (45.0 vs 21.3 J/TH)
- Canaan Avalon Mini 3 100% better weight (9,500.0 vs 8.4 kg)
- Bitmain Antminer S17 (53Th) 198% more heat output (8,138 vs 2,730 BTU/hr)
- Canaan Avalon Mini 3 150% more score de minage domestique (26.0 vs 65.0)
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.
| Bitmain Antminer S17 (53Th) | Metric | Canaan Avalon Mini 3 |
|---|---|---|
| $274 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $710 |
| -$3.82 | Daily net profit | -$0.57 |
| -$1,668 | Net after 1 year | -$919 |
| -$3,061 | Net after 2 years | -$1,127 |
| -$4,455 | Net after 3 years | -$1,336 |
| 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
Canaan Avalon Mini 3Score: 65/100. 33 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Canaan Avalon Mini 321.3 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Bitmain Antminer S17 (53Th) or Canaan Avalon Mini 3 more profitable?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Canaan Avalon Mini 3 is more profitable at $-0.57/day compared to $-3.82/day for the Bitmain Antminer S17 (53Th). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Is the Bitmain Antminer S17 (53Th) or the Canaan Avalon Mini 3 better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The Canaan Avalon Mini 3 is quieter at 33 dB compared to the Bitmain Antminer S17 (53Th) at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Bitmain Antminer S17 (53Th) vs Canaan Avalon Mini 3: which fits a residential setup better?
The Canaan Avalon Mini 3 scores 65/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 26/100 for the Bitmain Antminer S17 (53Th)). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
How far apart are the Bitmain Antminer S17 (53Th) and Canaan Avalon Mini 3 on J/TH?
The Bitmain Antminer S17 (53Th) runs at 45.0 J/TH while the Canaan Avalon Mini 3 runs at 21.3 J/TH — a difference of 23.7 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 53% better efficacité (45.0 vs 21.3 J/TH).