Bitmain Antminer T9 (11.5Th) vs MicroBT Whatsminer M20S
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Bitmain Antminer T9 (11.5Th) | Specification | MicroBT Whatsminer M20S |
|---|---|---|
| 11.5 TH/s | Taux de hachage | 68.0 TH/s |
| 1,450 W | Consommation électrique | 3,360 W |
| 126.1 J/TH | Efficiency | 49.4 J/TH |
| — | Niveau de bruit | — |
| 3,800.0 kg | Weight | 12,500.0 kg |
| 4,947 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 11,464 BTU/hr |
| 31/100 | Home Mining Score | 22/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithme | SHA-256 |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | MicroBT |
Profitability Comparison
Bitmain Antminer T9 (11.5Th)
MicroBT Whatsminer M20S
Based on BTC price of $77,994 and current network difficulty as of May 17, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Weighing six performance factors, the MicroBT Whatsminer M20S comes out ahead — it takes 3 of 5 (efficacité, hashrate, rapport qualité-prix). Where it pulls away hardest is 491% more hashrate (11.5 vs 68.0 TH/s). The Bitmain Antminer T9 (11.5Th) claws back ground on consommation électrique and score de minage domestique. The right pick still depends on your power cost and noise tolerance — the breakdowns above make that call concrete.
Spec Deltas
The Bitmain Antminer T9 (11.5Th) and MicroBT Whatsminer M20S diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- MicroBT Whatsminer M20S 491% more hashrate (11.5 vs 68.0 TH/s)
- Bitmain Antminer T9 (11.5Th) 57% better power draw (1,450 vs 3,360 W)
- MicroBT Whatsminer M20S 61% better efficacité (126.1 vs 49.4 J/TH)
- Bitmain Antminer T9 (11.5Th) 70% better weight (3,800 vs 12,500 kg)
- MicroBT Whatsminer M20S 132% more heat output (4,947 vs 11,464 BTU/hr)
- Bitmain Antminer T9 (11.5Th) 41% more score de minage domestique (31.0 vs 22.0)
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.
| Bitmain Antminer T9 (11.5Th) | Metric | MicroBT Whatsminer M20S |
|---|---|---|
| $955 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $66 |
| -$3.07 | Daily net profit | -$5.62 |
| -$2,075 | Net after 1 year | -$2,119 |
| -$3,194 | Net after 2 years | -$4,171 |
| -$4,314 | Net after 3 years | -$6,224 |
| 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
Bitmain Antminer T9 (11.5Th)Score: 31/100. 0 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
MicroBT Whatsminer M20S49.4 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Bitmain Antminer T9 (11.5Th) vs MicroBT Whatsminer M20S: which one earns more per day?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Bitmain Antminer T9 (11.5Th) is more profitable at $-3.07/day compared to $-5.62/day for the MicroBT Whatsminer M20S. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Is the Bitmain Antminer T9 (11.5Th) or the MicroBT Whatsminer M20S better for noise-sensitive spaces?
Both miners have similar noise levels. Check the specs table above for exact decibel readings.
Which is better for home mining, the Bitmain Antminer T9 (11.5Th) or MicroBT Whatsminer M20S?
The Bitmain Antminer T9 (11.5Th) scores 31/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 22/100 for the MicroBT Whatsminer M20S). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
Bitmain Antminer T9 (11.5Th) vs MicroBT Whatsminer M20S: how much does the efficiency gap matter?
The Bitmain Antminer T9 (11.5Th) runs at 126.1 J/TH while the MicroBT Whatsminer M20S runs at 49.4 J/TH — a difference of 76.7 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 61% better efficacité (126.1 vs 49.4 J/TH).