Antminer E9 Pro vs Bitmain Antminer L3+ (600Mh)
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Antminer E9 Pro | Specification | Bitmain Antminer L3+ (600Mh) |
|---|---|---|
| 3,680.0 MH/s | Hashrate | 600.0 MH/s |
| 2,200 W | Power Consumption | 850 W |
| 597,826.1 J/TH | Efficiency | 1,416,666.7 J/TH |
| 75 dB | Noise Level | — |
| 14.2 kg | Weight | 4,400.0 kg |
| 7,506 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 2,900 BTU/hr |
| 40/100 | Home Mining Score | 28/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| EtHash | Algorithm | Scrypt |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | Bitmain |
Profitability Comparison
Antminer E9 Pro
Bitmain Antminer L3+ (600Mh)
Based on BTC price of $78,223 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Run the numbers across every spec and the Antminer E9 Pro edges it: 4 of 6 factors go its way (efficiency, hashrate, home mining score, noise level). The standout gap is 513% more hashrate (0.0 vs 0.0 TH/s) in the Antminer E9 Pro's favour. That said, the Bitmain Antminer L3+ (600Mh) isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins power consumption and price-performance. Review the detailed specs and profitability calculations above to determine which miner best fits your specific setup.
Spec Deltas
Here is every spec where the Antminer E9 Pro and Bitmain Antminer L3+ (600Mh) actually differ, with the gap quantified:
- Antminer E9 Pro 513% more hashrate (0.0 vs 0.0 TH/s)
- Bitmain Antminer L3+ (600Mh) 61% better power draw (2,200 vs 850 W)
- Antminer E9 Pro 58% better efficiency (597,826 vs 1,416,667 J/TH)
- Antminer E9 Pro 100% better weight (14.2 vs 4,400.0 kg)
- Antminer E9 Pro 159% more heat output (7,506 vs 2,900 BTU/hr)
- Antminer E9 Pro 43% more home mining score (40.0 vs 28.0)
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.
| Antminer E9 Pro | Metric | Bitmain Antminer L3+ (600Mh) |
|---|---|---|
| $3,000 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $165 |
| -$5.28 | Daily net profit | -$2.04 |
| -$4,927 | Net after 1 year | -$910 |
| -$6,854 | Net after 2 years | -$1,654 |
| -$8,781 | Net after 3 years | -$2,399 |
| 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
Antminer E9 Pro597,826.1 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Antminer E9 Pro or Bitmain Antminer L3+ (600Mh) more profitable?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Bitmain Antminer L3+ (600Mh) is more profitable at $-2.04/day compared to $-5.28/day for the Antminer E9 Pro. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Is the Antminer E9 Pro or the Bitmain Antminer L3+ (600Mh) better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The Antminer E9 Pro is quieter at 75 dB compared to the Bitmain Antminer L3+ (600Mh) at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Antminer E9 Pro vs Bitmain Antminer L3+ (600Mh): which fits a residential setup better?
The Antminer E9 Pro scores 40/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 28/100 for the Bitmain Antminer L3+ (600Mh)). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
Antminer E9 Pro vs Bitmain Antminer L3+ (600Mh): how much does the efficiency gap matter?
The Antminer E9 Pro runs at 597,826.1 J/TH while the Bitmain Antminer L3+ (600Mh) runs at 1,416,666.7 J/TH — a difference of 818,840.6 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 58% better efficiency (597,826 vs 1,416,667 J/TH).