Canaan Avalon A1566HA 2U vs Bolon Miner B11 (62Th)
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Canaan Avalon A1566HA 2U | Specification | Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) |
|---|---|---|
| 480.0 TH/s | Taux de hachage | 62.0 TH/s |
| 8,046 W | Consommation électrique | 3,286 W |
| 16.8 J/TH | Efficiency | 53.0 J/TH |
| 80 dB | Niveau de bruit | — |
| 20.0 kg | Weight | 14.0 kg |
| 27,453 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 11,212 BTU/hr |
| 23/100 | Home Mining Score | 22/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithme | SHA-256 |
| Canaan | Manufacturer | Bolon Miner |
Profitability Comparison
Canaan Avalon A1566HA 2U
Bolon Miner B11 (62Th)
Based on BTC price of $78,185 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Our scoring model gives the nod to the Canaan Avalon A1566HA 2U, which leads on 4 of 5 weighted factors (efficacité, hashrate, score de minage domestique, niveau sonore). Where it pulls away hardest is 674% more hashrate (480.0 vs 62.0 TH/s). That said, the Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins consommation électrique. Review the detailed specs and profitability calculations above to determine which miner best fits your specific setup.
Spec Deltas
The Canaan Avalon A1566HA 2U and Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- Canaan Avalon A1566HA 2U 674% more hashrate (480.0 vs 62.0 TH/s)
- Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) 59% better power draw (8,046 vs 3,286 W)
- Canaan Avalon A1566HA 2U 68% better efficacité (16.8 vs 53.0 J/TH)
- Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) 30% better weight (20.0 vs 14.0 kg)
- Canaan Avalon A1566HA 2U 145% more heat output (27,453 vs 11,212 BTU/hr)
- Canaan Avalon A1566HA 2U 5% more score de minage domestique (23.0 vs 22.0)
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.
| Canaan Avalon A1566HA 2U | Metric | Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) |
|---|---|---|
| $5,568 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | — |
| -$2.04 | Daily net profit | -$5.66 |
| -$6,313 | Net after 1 year | -$2,064 |
| -$7,057 | Net after 2 years | -$4,129 |
| -$7,802 | Net after 3 years | -$6,193 |
| Does not pay back at current rates (negative daily profit) | Payback period | — |
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 A1566HA 2UScore: 23/100. 80 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Canaan Avalon A1566HA 2U16.8 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which makes more money, the Canaan Avalon A1566HA 2U or the Bolon Miner B11 (62Th)?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Canaan Avalon A1566HA 2U is more profitable at $-2.04/day compared to $-5.66/day for the Bolon Miner B11 (62Th). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Is the Canaan Avalon A1566HA 2U or the Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The Canaan Avalon A1566HA 2U is quieter at 80 dB compared to the Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
For mining at home, should I pick the Canaan Avalon A1566HA 2U or the Bolon Miner B11 (62Th)?
The Canaan Avalon A1566HA 2U scores 23/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 22/100 for the Bolon Miner B11 (62Th)). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
How far apart are the Canaan Avalon A1566HA 2U and Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) on J/TH?
The Canaan Avalon A1566HA 2U runs at 16.8 J/TH while the Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) runs at 53.0 J/TH — a difference of 36.2 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 68% better efficacité (16.8 vs 53.0 J/TH).