Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 vs Whatsminer M60S++
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 | Specification | Whatsminer M60S++ |
|---|---|---|
| 150.0 TH/s | Taux de hachage | 220.0 TH/s |
| 3,230 W | Consommation électrique | 3,960 W |
| 21.5 J/TH | Efficiency | 18.0 J/TH |
| — | Niveau de bruit | 75 dB |
| 13.0 kg | Weight | 14.0 kg |
| 11,021 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 13,512 BTU/hr |
| 22/100 | Home Mining Score | 30/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithme | SHA-256 |
| Canaan | Manufacturer | MicroBT |
Profitability Comparison
Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466
Whatsminer M60S++
Based on BTC price of $78,128 and current network difficulty as of May 17, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Our scoring model gives the nod to the Whatsminer M60S++, which leads on 4 of 6 weighted factors (efficacité, hashrate, score de minage domestique, niveau sonore). Where it pulls away hardest is 47% more hashrate (150 vs 220 TH/s). The Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 claws back ground on consommation électrique and rapport qualité-prix. Review the detailed specs and profitability calculations above to determine which miner best fits your specific setup.
Spec Deltas
The Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 and Whatsminer M60S++ diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- Whatsminer M60S++ 47% more hashrate (150 vs 220 TH/s)
- Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 18% better power draw (3,230 vs 3,960 W)
- Whatsminer M60S++ 16% better efficacité (21.5 vs 18.0 J/TH)
- Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 7% better weight (13.0 vs 14.0 kg)
- Whatsminer M60S++ 23% more heat output (11,021 vs 13,512 BTU/hr)
- Whatsminer M60S++ 36% more score de minage domestique (22.0 vs 30.0)
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 AvalonMiner Made A1466 | Metric | Whatsminer M60S++ |
|---|---|---|
| $937 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $7,000 |
| -$2.36 | Daily net profit | -$1.59 |
| -$1,798 | Net after 1 year | -$7,582 |
| -$2,659 | Net after 2 years | -$8,164 |
| -$3,520 | Net after 3 years | -$8,746 |
| 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
Whatsminer M60S++Score: 30/100. 75 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Whatsminer M60S++18.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 or Whatsminer M60S++ more profitable?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Whatsminer M60S++ is more profitable at $-1.59/day compared to $-2.36/day for the Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 vs Whatsminer M60S++: which runs at a lower noise level?
The Whatsminer M60S++ is quieter at 75 dB compared to the Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Which is better for home mining, the Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 or Whatsminer M60S++?
The Whatsminer M60S++ scores 30/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 22/100 for the Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 vs Whatsminer M60S++: how much does the efficiency gap matter?
The Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 runs at 21.5 J/TH while the Whatsminer M60S++ runs at 18.0 J/TH — a difference of 3.5 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 16% better efficacité (21.5 vs 18.0 J/TH).