Bitmain Antminer S9 (13.5Th) vs Canaan Avalon A1566I
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Bitmain Antminer S9 (13.5Th) | Specification | Canaan Avalon A1566I |
|---|---|---|
| 13.5 TH/s | Hashrate | 249.0 TH/s |
| 1,323 W | Power Consumption | 4,500 W |
| 98.0 J/TH | Efficiency | 18.1 J/TH |
| — | Noise Level | 50 dB |
| 4,200.0 kg | Weight | 11.3 kg |
| 4,514 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 15,354 BTU/hr |
| 31/100 | Home Mining Score | 44/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithm | SHA-256 |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | Canaan |
Profitability Comparison
Bitmain Antminer S9 (13.5Th)
Canaan Avalon A1566I
Based on BTC price of $79,095 and current network difficulty as of May 15, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Run the numbers across every spec and the Canaan Avalon A1566I edges it: 4 of 6 factors go its way (efficiency, hashrate, home mining score, noise level). Where it pulls away hardest is 1744% more hashrate (13.5 vs 249.0 TH/s). The Bitmain Antminer S9 (13.5Th) claws back ground on power consumption and price-performance. The right pick still depends on your power cost and noise tolerance — the breakdowns above make that call concrete.
Spec Deltas
The Bitmain Antminer S9 (13.5Th) and Canaan Avalon A1566I diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- Canaan Avalon A1566I 1744% more hashrate (13.5 vs 249.0 TH/s)
- Bitmain Antminer S9 (13.5Th) 71% better power draw (1,323 vs 4,500 W)
- Canaan Avalon A1566I 82% better efficiency (98.0 vs 18.1 J/TH)
- Canaan Avalon A1566I 100% better weight (4,200.0 vs 11.3 kg)
- Canaan Avalon A1566I 240% more heat output (4,514 vs 15,354 BTU/hr)
- Canaan Avalon A1566I 42% more home mining score (31.0 vs 44.0)
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.
| Bitmain Antminer S9 (13.5Th) | Metric | Canaan Avalon A1566I |
|---|---|---|
| $65 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $2,710 |
| -$2.68 | Daily net profit | -$1.74 |
| -$1,045 | Net after 1 year | -$3,344 |
| -$2,024 | Net after 2 years | -$3,978 |
| -$3,004 | Net after 3 years | -$4,612 |
| 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
Canaan Avalon A1566IScore: 44/100. 50 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Canaan Avalon A1566I18.1 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which makes more money, the Bitmain Antminer S9 (13.5Th) or the Canaan Avalon A1566I?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Canaan Avalon A1566I is more profitable at $-1.74/day compared to $-2.68/day for the Bitmain Antminer S9 (13.5Th). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Is the Bitmain Antminer S9 (13.5Th) or the Canaan Avalon A1566I better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The Canaan Avalon A1566I is quieter at 50 dB compared to the Bitmain Antminer S9 (13.5Th) at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Bitmain Antminer S9 (13.5Th) vs Canaan Avalon A1566I: which fits a residential setup better?
The Canaan Avalon A1566I scores 44/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 31/100 for the Bitmain Antminer S9 (13.5Th)). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
How far apart are the Bitmain Antminer S9 (13.5Th) and Canaan Avalon A1566I on J/TH?
The Bitmain Antminer S9 (13.5Th) runs at 98.0 J/TH while the Canaan Avalon A1566I runs at 18.1 J/TH — a difference of 79.9 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 82% better efficiency (98.0 vs 18.1 J/TH).