Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) vs Canaan Avalon A15-194T
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) | Specification | Canaan Avalon A15-194T |
|---|---|---|
| 16.0 TH/s | Hashrate | 194.0 TH/s |
| 1,280 W | Power Consumption | 3,647 W |
| 80.0 J/TH | Efficiency | 18.8 J/TH |
| — | Noise Level | 75 dB |
| 4,560.0 kg | Weight | 12.8 kg |
| 4,367 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 12,444 BTU/hr |
| 31/100 | Home Mining Score | 30/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithm | SHA-256 |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | Canaan |
Profitability Comparison
Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th)
Canaan Avalon A15-194T
Based on BTC price of $79,113 and current network difficulty as of May 15, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Weighing six performance factors, the Canaan Avalon A15-194T comes out ahead — it takes 3 of 5 (efficiency, hashrate, noise level). Its biggest concrete edge: 1113% more hashrate (16.0 vs 194.0 TH/s). That said, the Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins power consumption and home mining score. Cross-check the spec deltas and ROI table above against your own electricity rate before deciding.
Spec Deltas
Here is every spec where the Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) and Canaan Avalon A15-194T actually differ, with the gap quantified:
- Canaan Avalon A15-194T 1113% more hashrate (16.0 vs 194.0 TH/s)
- Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) 65% better power draw (1,280 vs 3,647 W)
- Canaan Avalon A15-194T 77% better efficiency (80.0 vs 18.8 J/TH)
- Canaan Avalon A15-194T 100% better weight (4,560.0 vs 12.8 kg)
- Canaan Avalon A15-194T 185% more heat output (4,367 vs 12,444 BTU/hr)
- Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) 3% more home mining score (31.0 vs 30.0)
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 SE (16Th) | Metric | Canaan Avalon A15-194T |
|---|---|---|
| — | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $2,749 |
| -$2.49 | Daily net profit | -$1.69 |
| -$909 | Net after 1 year | -$3,366 |
| -$1,817 | Net after 2 years | -$3,983 |
| -$2,726 | Net after 3 years | -$4,599 |
| — | 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
Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th)Score: 31/100. 0 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Canaan Avalon A15-194T18.8 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which makes more money, the Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) or the Canaan Avalon A15-194T?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Canaan Avalon A15-194T is more profitable at $-1.69/day compared to $-2.49/day for the Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) vs Canaan Avalon A15-194T: which runs at a lower noise level?
The Canaan Avalon A15-194T is quieter at 75 dB compared to the Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Which is better for home mining, the Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) or Canaan Avalon A15-194T?
The Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) scores 31/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 30/100 for the Canaan Avalon A15-194T). 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 Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) and Canaan Avalon A15-194T?
The Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) runs at 80.0 J/TH while the Canaan Avalon A15-194T runs at 18.8 J/TH — a difference of 61.2 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 77% better efficiency (80.0 vs 18.8 J/TH).