Antminer Loki Edition (S9) vs Canaan Avalon A1566HA
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Antminer Loki Edition (S9) | Specification | Canaan Avalon A1566HA |
|---|---|---|
| 14.0 TH/s | Hashrate | 460.0 TH/s |
| 1,350 W | Power Consumption | 8,188 W |
| 96.4 J/TH | Efficiency | 17.8 J/TH |
| 55 dB | Noise Level | 80 dB |
| 6.0 kg | Weight | 20.0 kg |
| 4,606 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 27,938 BTU/hr |
| 59/100 | Home Mining Score | 23/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithm | SHA-256 |
| D-Central | Manufacturer | Canaan |
Profitability Comparison
Antminer Loki Edition (S9)
Canaan Avalon A1566HA
Based on BTC price of $78,278 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Weighing six performance factors, the Canaan Avalon A1566HA comes out ahead — it takes 3 of 6 (efficiency, hashrate, price-performance). Where it pulls away hardest is 3186% more hashrate (14.0 vs 460.0 TH/s). That said, the Antminer Loki Edition (S9) isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins 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
Here is every spec where the Antminer Loki Edition (S9) and Canaan Avalon A1566HA actually differ, with the gap quantified:
- Canaan Avalon A1566HA 3186% more hashrate (14.0 vs 460.0 TH/s)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 84% better power draw (1,350 vs 8,188 W)
- Canaan Avalon A1566HA 82% better efficiency (96.4 vs 17.8 J/TH)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 31% better noise (55.0 vs 80.0 dB)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 70% better weight (6.0 vs 20.0 kg)
- Canaan Avalon A1566HA 507% more heat output (4,606 vs 27,938 BTU/hr)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 157% more home mining score (59.0 vs 23.0)
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 Loki Edition (S9) | Metric | Canaan Avalon A1566HA |
|---|---|---|
| $349 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $5,074 |
| -$2.74 | Daily net profit | -$3.08 |
| -$1,348 | Net after 1 year | -$6,199 |
| -$2,346 | Net after 2 years | -$7,323 |
| -$3,345 | Net after 3 years | -$8,448 |
| 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 Loki Edition (S9)Score: 59/100. 55 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Canaan Avalon A1566HA17.8 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Antminer Loki Edition (S9) vs Canaan Avalon A1566HA: which one earns more per day?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Antminer Loki Edition (S9) is more profitable at $-2.74/day compared to $-3.08/day for the Canaan Avalon A1566HA. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Which is quieter, the Antminer Loki Edition (S9) or Canaan Avalon A1566HA?
The Antminer Loki Edition (S9) is quieter at 55 dB compared to the Canaan Avalon A1566HA at 80 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Antminer Loki Edition (S9) vs Canaan Avalon A1566HA: which fits a residential setup better?
The Antminer Loki Edition (S9) scores 59/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 23/100 for the Canaan Avalon A1566HA). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
Antminer Loki Edition (S9) vs Canaan Avalon A1566HA: how much does the efficiency gap matter?
The Antminer Loki Edition (S9) runs at 96.4 J/TH while the Canaan Avalon A1566HA runs at 17.8 J/TH — a difference of 78.6 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 82% better efficiency (96.4 vs 17.8 J/TH).