Canaan Avalon A15-194T vs Canaan Avalon Nano 3S
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Canaan Avalon A15-194T | Specification | Canaan Avalon Nano 3S |
|---|---|---|
| 194.0 TH/s | Taux de hachage | 6.0 TH/s |
| 3,647 W | Consommation électrique | 140 W |
| 18.8 J/TH | Efficiency | 23.3 J/TH |
| 75 dB | Niveau de bruit | 30 dB |
| 12.8 kg | Weight | 0.9 kg |
| 12,444 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 478 BTU/hr |
| 30/100 | Home Mining Score | 65/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithme | SHA-256 |
| Canaan | Manufacturer | Canaan |
Profitability Comparison
Canaan Avalon A15-194T
Canaan Avalon Nano 3S
Based on BTC price of $75,505 and current network difficulty as of May 27, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Selon notre analyse multifactorielle, le Canaan Avalon A15-194T l'emporte sur 3 des 6 facteurs (efficacité, hashrate, rapport qualité-prix). The standout gap is 3133% more hashrate (194.0 vs 6.0 TH/s) in the Canaan Avalon A15-194T's favour. The Canaan Avalon Nano 3S holds the edge in consommation électrique and score de minage domestique and niveau sonore. The right pick still depends on your power cost and noise tolerance — the breakdowns above make that call concrete.
Spec Deltas
Here is every spec where the Canaan Avalon A15-194T and Canaan Avalon Nano 3S actually differ, with the gap quantified:
- Canaan Avalon A15-194T 3133% more hashrate (194.0 vs 6.0 TH/s)
- Canaan Avalon Nano 3S 96% better power draw (3,647 vs 140 W)
- Canaan Avalon A15-194T 19% better efficacité (18.8 vs 23.3 J/TH)
- Canaan Avalon Nano 3S 60% better noise (75.0 vs 30.0 dB)
- Canaan Avalon Nano 3S 93% better weight (12.8 vs 0.9 kg)
- Canaan Avalon A15-194T 2505% more heat output (12,444 vs 478 BTU/hr)
- Canaan Avalon Nano 3S 117% more score de minage domestique (30.0 vs 65.0)
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.
| Canaan Avalon A15-194T | Metric | Canaan Avalon Nano 3S |
|---|---|---|
| $2,749 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $145 |
| -$2.01 | Daily net profit | -$0.13 |
| -$3,483 | Net after 1 year | -$192 |
| -$4,218 | Net after 2 years | -$238 |
| -$4,952 | Net after 3 years | -$285 |
| 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 Nano 3SScore: 65/100. 30 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Canaan Avalon A15-194T18.8 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Canaan Avalon A15-194T or Canaan Avalon Nano 3S more profitable?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Canaan Avalon Nano 3S is more profitable at $-0.13/day compared to $-2.01/day for the Canaan Avalon A15-194T. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Is the Canaan Avalon A15-194T or the Canaan Avalon Nano 3S better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The Canaan Avalon Nano 3S is quieter at 30 dB compared to the Canaan Avalon A15-194T at 75 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Canaan Avalon A15-194T vs Canaan Avalon Nano 3S: which fits a residential setup better?
The Canaan Avalon Nano 3S scores 65/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 30/100 for the Canaan Avalon A15-194T). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
Canaan Avalon A15-194T vs Canaan Avalon Nano 3S: how much does the efficiency gap matter?
The Canaan Avalon A15-194T runs at 18.8 J/TH while the Canaan Avalon Nano 3S runs at 23.3 J/TH — a difference of 4.5 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 19% better efficacité (18.8 vs 23.3 J/TH).