Antminer E9 Pro vs Bitmain Antminer KS3 (9.4Th)
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Antminer E9 Pro | Specification | Bitmain Antminer KS3 (9.4Th) |
|---|---|---|
| 3,680.0 MH/s | Hashrate | 9.4 TH/s |
| 2,200 W | Power Consumption | 3,500 W |
| 597,826.1 J/TH | Efficiency | 372.3 J/TH |
| 75 dB | Noise Level | — |
| 14.2 kg | Weight | 17.7 kg |
| 7,506 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 11,942 BTU/hr |
| 40/100 | Home Mining Score | 22/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| EtHash | Algorithm | KHeavyHash |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | Bitmain |
Profitability Comparison
Antminer E9 Pro
Bitmain Antminer KS3 (9.4Th)
Based on BTC price of $78,139 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Weighing six performance factors, the Bitmain Antminer KS3 (9.4Th) comes out ahead — it takes 3 of 6 (efficiency, hashrate, price-performance). The standout gap is 255335% more hashrate (0.0 vs 9.4 TH/s) in the Bitmain Antminer KS3 (9.4Th)'s favour. The Antminer E9 Pro holds the edge in power consumption and 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 Antminer E9 Pro and Bitmain Antminer KS3 (9.4Th) diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- Bitmain Antminer KS3 (9.4Th) 255335% more hashrate (0.0 vs 9.4 TH/s)
- Antminer E9 Pro 37% better power draw (2,200 vs 3,500 W)
- Bitmain Antminer KS3 (9.4Th) 100% better efficiency (597,826 vs 372 J/TH)
- Antminer E9 Pro 20% better weight (14.2 vs 17.7 kg)
- Bitmain Antminer KS3 (9.4Th) 59% more heat output (7,506 vs 11,942 BTU/hr)
- Antminer E9 Pro 82% more home mining score (40.0 vs 22.0)
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.
| Antminer E9 Pro | Metric | Bitmain Antminer KS3 (9.4Th) |
|---|---|---|
| $3,000 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $2,500 |
| -$5.28 | Daily net profit | -$8.06 |
| -$4,927 | Net after 1 year | -$5,443 |
| -$6,854 | Net after 2 years | -$8,385 |
| -$8,781 | Net after 3 years | -$11,328 |
| 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
Antminer E9 ProScore: 40/100. 75 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Bitmain Antminer KS3 (9.4Th)372.3 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which makes more money, the Antminer E9 Pro or the Bitmain Antminer KS3 (9.4Th)?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Antminer E9 Pro is more profitable at $-5.28/day compared to $-8.06/day for the Bitmain Antminer KS3 (9.4Th). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Antminer E9 Pro vs Bitmain Antminer KS3 (9.4Th): which runs at a lower noise level?
The Antminer E9 Pro is quieter at 75 dB compared to the Bitmain Antminer KS3 (9.4Th) at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Which is better for home mining, the Antminer E9 Pro or Bitmain Antminer KS3 (9.4Th)?
The Antminer E9 Pro scores 40/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 22/100 for the Bitmain Antminer KS3 (9.4Th)). 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 Antminer E9 Pro and Bitmain Antminer KS3 (9.4Th)?
The Antminer E9 Pro runs at 597,826.1 J/TH while the Bitmain Antminer KS3 (9.4Th) runs at 372.3 J/TH — a difference of 597,453.8 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 100% better efficiency (597,826 vs 372 J/TH).