Antminer Loki Edition (S9) vs Canaan Avalon A16XP
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Antminer Loki Edition (S9) | Specification | Canaan Avalon A16XP |
|---|---|---|
| 14.0 TH/s | Hashrate | 300.0 TH/s |
| 1,350 W | Power Consumption | 3,850 W |
| 96.4 J/TH | Efficiency | 12.8 J/TH |
| 55 dB | Noise Level | 75 dB |
| 6.0 kg | Weight | 14.9 kg |
| 4,606 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 13,136 BTU/hr |
| 59/100 | Home Mining Score | 30/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithm | SHA-256 |
| D-Central | Manufacturer | Canaan |
Profitability Comparison
Antminer Loki Edition (S9)
Canaan Avalon A16XP
Based on BTC price of $78,163 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Based on our multi-factor analysis, the Canaan Avalon A16XP wins on 3 of 6 factors (efficiency, hashrate, price-performance). Its biggest concrete edge: 2043% more hashrate (14.0 vs 300.0 TH/s). The Antminer Loki Edition (S9) claws back ground on 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 Loki Edition (S9) and Canaan Avalon A16XP diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- Canaan Avalon A16XP 2043% more hashrate (14.0 vs 300.0 TH/s)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 65% better power draw (1,350 vs 3,850 W)
- Canaan Avalon A16XP 87% better efficiency (96.4 vs 12.8 J/TH)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 27% better noise (55.0 vs 75.0 dB)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 60% better weight (6.0 vs 14.9 kg)
- Canaan Avalon A16XP 185% more heat output (4,606 vs 13,136 BTU/hr)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 97% more home mining score (59.0 vs 30.0)
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 Loki Edition (S9) | Metric | Canaan Avalon A16XP |
|---|---|---|
| $349 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $4,280 |
| -$2.74 | Daily net profit | $1.55 |
| -$1,348 | Net after 1 year | -$3,714 |
| -$2,347 | Net after 2 years | -$3,148 |
| -$3,345 | Net after 3 years | -$2,582 |
| Does not pay back at current rates (negative daily profit) | Payback period | Takes ~7.6 years to pay back at current rates |
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
Canaan Avalon A16XP$4.29/day higher profit at current rates.
Best for Home Mining
Antminer Loki Edition (S9)Score: 59/100. 55 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Canaan Avalon A16XP12.8 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which makes more money, the Antminer Loki Edition (S9) or the Canaan Avalon A16XP?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Canaan Avalon A16XP is more profitable at $1.55/day compared to $-2.74/day for the Antminer Loki Edition (S9). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Is the Antminer Loki Edition (S9) or the Canaan Avalon A16XP better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The Antminer Loki Edition (S9) is quieter at 55 dB compared to the Canaan Avalon A16XP at 75 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Which is better for home mining, the Antminer Loki Edition (S9) or Canaan Avalon A16XP?
The Antminer Loki Edition (S9) scores 59/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 30/100 for the Canaan Avalon A16XP). 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 Loki Edition (S9) and Canaan Avalon A16XP?
The Antminer Loki Edition (S9) runs at 96.4 J/TH while the Canaan Avalon A16XP runs at 12.8 J/TH — a difference of 83.6 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 87% better efficiency (96.4 vs 12.8 J/TH).