Iceriver AE2 720Mh vs Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Iceriver AE2 720Mh | Specification | Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite |
|---|---|---|
| 720.0 MH/s | Hashrate | 300.0 MH/s |
| 1,300 W | Power Consumption | 500 W |
| 1,805,555.6 J/TH | Efficiency | 1,666,666.7 J/TH |
| 60 dB | Noise Level | 45 dB |
| 15.5 kg | Weight | 4.0 kg |
| 4,436 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 1,706 BTU/hr |
| 52/100 | Home Mining Score | 62/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Zksnark | Algorithm | Zksnark |
| IceRiver | Manufacturer | IceRiver |
Profitability Comparison
Iceriver AE2 720Mh
Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite
Based on BTC price of $78,153 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Weighing six performance factors, the Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite comes out ahead — it takes 4 of 5 (efficiency, power consumption, home mining score, noise level). Its biggest concrete edge: 62% better power draw (1,300 vs 500 W). The Iceriver AE2 720Mh claws back ground on price-performance. The right pick still depends on your power cost and noise tolerance — the breakdowns above make that call concrete.
Spec Deltas
Stripped to the numbers, this is how far apart the Iceriver AE2 720Mh and Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite sit on each measurable spec:
- Iceriver AE2 720Mh 140% more hashrate (0.0 vs 0.0 TH/s)
- Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite 62% better power draw (1,300 vs 500 W)
- Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite 8% better efficiency (1,805,556 vs 1,666,667 J/TH)
- Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite 25% better noise (60.0 vs 45.0 dB)
- Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite 74% better weight (15.5 vs 4.0 kg)
- Iceriver AE2 720Mh 160% more heat output (4,436 vs 1,706 BTU/hr)
- Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite 19% more home mining score (52.0 vs 62.0)
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.
| Iceriver AE2 720Mh | Metric | Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite |
|---|---|---|
| $1,595 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $979 |
| -$3.12 | Daily net profit | -$1.20 |
| -$2,734 | Net after 1 year | -$1,417 |
| -$3,873 | Net after 2 years | -$1,855 |
| -$5,011 | Net after 3 years | -$2,293 |
| 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
Iceriver ALEO AE1 LiteScore: 62/100. 45 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite1,666,666.7 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Iceriver AE2 720Mh or Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite more profitable?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite is more profitable at $-1.20/day compared to $-3.12/day for the Iceriver AE2 720Mh. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Iceriver AE2 720Mh vs Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite: which runs at a lower noise level?
The Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite is quieter at 45 dB compared to the Iceriver AE2 720Mh at 60 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Which is better for home mining, the Iceriver AE2 720Mh or Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite?
The Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite scores 62/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 52/100 for the Iceriver AE2 720Mh). 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 Iceriver AE2 720Mh and Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite?
The Iceriver AE2 720Mh runs at 1,805,555.6 J/TH while the Iceriver ALEO AE1 Lite runs at 1,666,666.7 J/TH — a difference of 138,888.9 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 8% better efficiency (1,805,556 vs 1,666,667 J/TH).