Antminer Loki Edition (S9) vs MicroBT WhatsMiner M72
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Antminer Loki Edition (S9) | Specification | MicroBT WhatsMiner M72 |
|---|---|---|
| 14.0 TH/s | Hashrate | 262.0 TH/s |
| 1,350 W | Power Consumption | 3,799 W |
| 96.4 J/TH | Efficiency | 14.5 J/TH |
| 55 dB | Noise Level | 75 dB |
| 6.0 kg | Weight | 25.5 kg |
| 4,606 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 12,962 BTU/hr |
| 59/100 | Home Mining Score | 30/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithm | SHA-256 |
| D-Central | Manufacturer | MicroBT |
Profitability Comparison
Antminer Loki Edition (S9)
MicroBT WhatsMiner M72
Based on BTC price of $79,032 and current network difficulty as of May 15, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Based on our multi-factor analysis, the MicroBT WhatsMiner M72 wins on 2 of 5 factors (efficiency, hashrate). Its biggest concrete edge: 1771% more hashrate (14.0 vs 262.0 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 MicroBT WhatsMiner M72 diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- MicroBT WhatsMiner M72 1771% more hashrate (14.0 vs 262.0 TH/s)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 64% better power draw (1,350 vs 3,799 W)
- MicroBT WhatsMiner M72 85% better efficiency (96.4 vs 14.5 J/TH)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 27% better noise (55.0 vs 75.0 dB)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 76% better weight (6.0 vs 25.5 kg)
- MicroBT WhatsMiner M72 181% more heat output (4,606 vs 12,962 BTU/hr)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 97% more home mining score (59.0 vs 30.0)
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.
| Antminer Loki Edition (S9) | Metric | MicroBT WhatsMiner M72 |
|---|---|---|
| $349 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | — |
| -$2.73 | Daily net profit | $0.41 |
| -$1,346 | Net after 1 year | +$150 |
| -$2,343 | Net after 2 years | +$300 |
| -$3,339 | Net after 3 years | +$450 |
| Does not pay back at current rates (negative daily profit) | Payback period | — |
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
MicroBT WhatsMiner M72$3.14/day higher profit at current rates.
Best for Home Mining
Antminer Loki Edition (S9)Score: 59/100. 55 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
MicroBT WhatsMiner M7214.5 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Antminer Loki Edition (S9) or MicroBT WhatsMiner M72 more profitable?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the MicroBT WhatsMiner M72 is more profitable at $0.41/day compared to $-2.73/day for the Antminer Loki Edition (S9). 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 MicroBT WhatsMiner M72?
The Antminer Loki Edition (S9) is quieter at 55 dB compared to the MicroBT WhatsMiner M72 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 MicroBT WhatsMiner M72?
The Antminer Loki Edition (S9) scores 59/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 30/100 for the MicroBT WhatsMiner M72). 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 MicroBT WhatsMiner M72?
The Antminer Loki Edition (S9) runs at 96.4 J/TH while the MicroBT WhatsMiner M72 runs at 14.5 J/TH — a difference of 81.9 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 85% better efficiency (96.4 vs 14.5 J/TH).