Canaan Avalon Nano 3S vs Canaan AvalonMiner 1066
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Canaan Avalon Nano 3S | Specification | Canaan AvalonMiner 1066 |
|---|---|---|
| 6.0 TH/s | Taux de hachage | 50.0 TH/s |
| 140 W | Consommation électrique | 3,250 W |
| 23.3 J/TH | Efficiency | 65.0 J/TH |
| 30 dB | Niveau de bruit | — |
| 0.9 kg | Weight | 11,400.0 kg |
| 478 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 11,089 BTU/hr |
| 65/100 | Home Mining Score | 22/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithme | SHA-256 |
| Canaan | Manufacturer | Canaan |
Profitability Comparison
Canaan Avalon Nano 3S
Canaan AvalonMiner 1066
Based on BTC price of $75,570 and current network difficulty as of May 27, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Run the numbers across every spec and the Canaan Avalon Nano 3S edges it: 5 of 6 factors go its way (efficacité, consommation électrique, score de minage domestique, niveau sonore, rapport qualité-prix). Where it pulls away hardest is 96% better power draw (140 vs 3,250 W). The Canaan AvalonMiner 1066 claws back ground on hashrate. Cross-check the spec deltas and operating-cost table above against your own electricity rate before deciding.
Spec Deltas
The Canaan Avalon Nano 3S and Canaan AvalonMiner 1066 diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- Canaan AvalonMiner 1066 733% more hashrate (6.0 vs 50.0 TH/s)
- Canaan Avalon Nano 3S 96% better power draw (140 vs 3,250 W)
- Canaan Avalon Nano 3S 64% better efficacité (23.3 vs 65.0 J/TH)
- Canaan Avalon Nano 3S 100% better weight (0.9 vs 11,400.0 kg)
- Canaan AvalonMiner 1066 2221% more heat output (478 vs 11,089 BTU/hr)
- Canaan Avalon Nano 3S 195% more score de minage domestique (65.0 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 Nano 3S | Metric | Canaan AvalonMiner 1066 |
|---|---|---|
| $145 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $1,255 |
| -$0.13 | Daily net profit | -$6.06 |
| -$191 | Net after 1 year | -$3,467 |
| -$238 | Net after 2 years | -$5,680 |
| -$284 | Net after 3 years | -$7,892 |
| 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 Nano 3S23.3 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Canaan Avalon Nano 3S vs Canaan AvalonMiner 1066: which one earns more per day?
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 $-6.06/day for the Canaan AvalonMiner 1066. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Canaan Avalon Nano 3S vs Canaan AvalonMiner 1066: which runs at a lower noise level?
The Canaan Avalon Nano 3S is quieter at 30 dB compared to the Canaan AvalonMiner 1066 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 Nano 3S or the Canaan AvalonMiner 1066?
The Canaan Avalon Nano 3S scores 65/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 22/100 for the Canaan AvalonMiner 1066). 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 Nano 3S and Canaan AvalonMiner 1066 on J/TH?
The Canaan Avalon Nano 3S runs at 23.3 J/TH while the Canaan AvalonMiner 1066 runs at 65.0 J/TH — a difference of 41.7 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 64% better efficacité (23.3 vs 65.0 J/TH).