Goldshell AE Max II vs Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Goldshell AE Max II | Specification | Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus |
|---|---|---|
| 540.0 MH/s | Hashrate | 1.0 TH/s |
| 3,200 W | Power Consumption | 480 W |
| 5,925,925.9 J/TH | Efficiency | 480.0 J/TH |
| 85 dB | Noise Level | — |
| 12.5 kg | Weight | 2.2 kg |
| 10,918 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 1,638 BTU/hr |
| 29/100 | Home Mining Score | 34/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Zksnark | Algorithm | Blake3 |
| Goldshell | Manufacturer | Goldshell |
Profitability Comparison
Goldshell AE Max II
Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus
Based on BTC price of $78,253 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Based on our multi-factor analysis, the Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus wins on 5 of 6 factors (efficiency, hashrate, power consumption, home mining score, price-performance). The standout gap is 100% better efficiency (5,925,926 vs 480 J/TH) in the Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus's favour. That said, the Goldshell AE Max II isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins noise level. Review the detailed specs and profitability calculations above to determine which miner best fits your specific setup.
Spec Deltas
Stripped to the numbers, this is how far apart the Goldshell AE Max II and Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus sit on each measurable spec:
- Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus 185085% more hashrate (0.0 vs 1.0 TH/s)
- Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus 85% better power draw (3,200 vs 480 W)
- Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus 100% better efficiency (5,925,926 vs 480 J/TH)
- Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus 82% better weight (12.5 vs 2.2 kg)
- Goldshell AE Max II 567% more heat output (10,918 vs 1,638 BTU/hr)
- Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus 17% more home mining score (29.0 vs 34.0)
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.
| Goldshell AE Max II | Metric | Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus |
|---|---|---|
| $1,050 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $129 |
| -$7.68 | Daily net profit | -$1.12 |
| -$3,853 | Net after 1 year | -$536 |
| -$6,656 | Net after 2 years | -$944 |
| -$9,460 | Net after 3 years | -$1,351 |
| 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 AL-BOX II PlusScore: 34/100. 0 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus480.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Goldshell AE Max II or Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus more profitable?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus is more profitable at $-1.12/day compared to $-7.68/day for the Goldshell AE Max II. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Which is quieter, the Goldshell AE Max II or Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus?
The Goldshell AE Max II is quieter at 85 dB compared to the Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Which is better for home mining, the Goldshell AE Max II or Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus?
The Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus scores 34/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 29/100 for the Goldshell AE Max II). 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 Goldshell AE Max II and Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus?
The Goldshell AE Max II runs at 5,925,925.9 J/TH while the Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus runs at 480.0 J/TH — a difference of 5,925,445.9 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 100% better efficiency (5,925,926 vs 480 J/TH).