Canaan Avalon A15Pro-218T vs Bolon Miner B11 (62Th)
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Canaan Avalon A15Pro-218T | Specification | Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) |
|---|---|---|
| 218.0 TH/s | Taux de hachage | 62.0 TH/s |
| 3,662 W | Consommation électrique | 3,286 W |
| 16.8 J/TH | Efficiency | 53.0 J/TH |
| 75 dB | Niveau de bruit | — |
| 14.9 kg | Weight | 14.0 kg |
| 12,495 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 11,212 BTU/hr |
| 30/100 | Home Mining Score | 22/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithme | SHA-256 |
| Canaan | Manufacturer | Bolon Miner |
Profitability Comparison
Canaan Avalon A15Pro-218T
Bolon Miner B11 (62Th)
Based on BTC price of $78,190 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Run the numbers across every spec and the Canaan Avalon A15Pro-218T edges it: 4 of 5 factors go its way (efficacité, hashrate, score de minage domestique, niveau sonore). The standout gap is 252% more hashrate (218.0 vs 62.0 TH/s) in the Canaan Avalon A15Pro-218T's favour. That said, the Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins consommation électrique. Cross-check the spec deltas and ROI table above against your own electricity rate before deciding.
Spec Deltas
The Canaan Avalon A15Pro-218T and Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- Canaan Avalon A15Pro-218T 252% more hashrate (218.0 vs 62.0 TH/s)
- Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) 10% better power draw (3,662 vs 3,286 W)
- Canaan Avalon A15Pro-218T 68% better efficacité (16.8 vs 53.0 J/TH)
- Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) 6% better weight (14.9 vs 14.0 kg)
- Canaan Avalon A15Pro-218T 11% more heat output (12,495 vs 11,212 BTU/hr)
- Canaan Avalon A15Pro-218T 36% more score de minage domestique (30.0 vs 22.0)
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.
| Canaan Avalon A15Pro-218T | Metric | Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) |
|---|---|---|
| $2,525 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | — |
| -$0.94 | Daily net profit | -$5.66 |
| -$2,870 | Net after 1 year | -$2,064 |
| -$3,215 | Net after 2 years | -$4,129 |
| -$3,560 | 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 A15Pro-218TScore: 30/100. 75 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Canaan Avalon A15Pro-218T16.8 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which makes more money, the Canaan Avalon A15Pro-218T or the Bolon Miner B11 (62Th)?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Canaan Avalon A15Pro-218T is more profitable at $-0.94/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 A15Pro-218T or the Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The Canaan Avalon A15Pro-218T is quieter at 75 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 A15Pro-218T or the Bolon Miner B11 (62Th)?
The Canaan Avalon A15Pro-218T scores 30/100 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.
What is the efficiency difference between Canaan Avalon A15Pro-218T and Bolon Miner B11 (62Th)?
The Canaan Avalon A15Pro-218T 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).