Goldshell AE-BOX II vs Goldshell AL BOX (360Gh)
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Goldshell AE-BOX II | Specification | Goldshell AL BOX (360Gh) |
|---|---|---|
| 54.0 MH/s | Hashrate | 360.0 GH/s |
| 530 W | Power Consumption | 180 W |
| 9,814,814.8 J/TH | Efficiency | 500.0 J/TH |
| 35 dB | Noise Level | — |
| 3.0 kg | Weight | 2.2 kg |
| 1,808 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 614 BTU/hr |
| 65/100 | Home Mining Score | 33/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Zksnark | Algorithm | Blake3 |
| Goldshell | Manufacturer | Goldshell |
Profitability Comparison
Goldshell AE-BOX II
Goldshell AL BOX (360Gh)
Based on BTC price of $78,208 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Weighing six performance factors, the Goldshell AL BOX (360Gh) comes out ahead — it takes 4 of 6 (efficiency, hashrate, power consumption, price-performance). The standout gap is 100% better efficiency (9,814,815 vs 500 J/TH) in the Goldshell AL BOX (360Gh)'s favour. The Goldshell AE-BOX II holds the edge in home mining score and noise level. Cross-check the spec deltas and ROI table above against your own electricity rate before deciding.
Spec Deltas
The Goldshell AE-BOX II and Goldshell AL BOX (360Gh) diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- Goldshell AL BOX (360Gh) 666567% more hashrate (0.0 vs 0.4 TH/s)
- Goldshell AL BOX (360Gh) 66% better power draw (530 vs 180 W)
- Goldshell AL BOX (360Gh) 100% better efficiency (9,814,815 vs 500 J/TH)
- Goldshell AL BOX (360Gh) 25% better weight (3.0 vs 2.2 kg)
- Goldshell AE-BOX II 194% more heat output (1,808 vs 614 BTU/hr)
- Goldshell AE-BOX II 97% more home mining score (65.0 vs 33.0)
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.
| Goldshell AE-BOX II | Metric | Goldshell AL BOX (360Gh) |
|---|---|---|
| $120 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $340 |
| -$1.27 | Daily net profit | -$0.42 |
| -$584 | Net after 1 year | -$493 |
| -$1,049 | Net after 2 years | -$646 |
| -$1,513 | Net after 3 years | -$799 |
| 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
Goldshell AE-BOX IIScore: 65/100. 35 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Goldshell AL BOX (360Gh)500.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which makes more money, the Goldshell AE-BOX II or the Goldshell AL BOX (360Gh)?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Goldshell AL BOX (360Gh) is more profitable at $-0.42/day compared to $-1.27/day for the Goldshell AE-BOX II. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Goldshell AE-BOX II vs Goldshell AL BOX (360Gh): which runs at a lower noise level?
The Goldshell AE-BOX II is quieter at 35 dB compared to the Goldshell AL BOX (360Gh) at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
For mining at home, should I pick the Goldshell AE-BOX II or the Goldshell AL BOX (360Gh)?
The Goldshell AE-BOX II scores 65/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 33/100 for the Goldshell AL BOX (360Gh)). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
Goldshell AE-BOX II vs Goldshell AL BOX (360Gh): how much does the efficiency gap matter?
The Goldshell AE-BOX II runs at 9,814,814.8 J/TH while the Goldshell AL BOX (360Gh) runs at 500.0 J/TH — a difference of 9,814,314.8 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 100% better efficiency (9,814,815 vs 500 J/TH).