Canaan Avalon Nano 3S vs Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Canaan Avalon Nano 3S | Specification | Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 |
|---|---|---|
| 6.0 TH/s | Hashrate | 150.0 TH/s |
| 140 W | Power Consumption | 3,230 W |
| 23.3 J/TH | Efficiency | 21.5 J/TH |
| 30 dB | Noise Level | — |
| 0.9 kg | Weight | 13.0 kg |
| 478 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 11,021 BTU/hr |
| 65/100 | Home Mining Score | 22/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithm | SHA-256 |
| Canaan | Manufacturer | Canaan |
Profitability Comparison
Canaan Avalon Nano 3S
Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466
Based on BTC price of $79,123 and current network difficulty as of May 15, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Our scoring model gives the nod to the Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466, which leads on 3 of 6 weighted factors (efficiency, hashrate, price-performance). Where it pulls away hardest is 2400% more hashrate (6.0 vs 150.0 TH/s). That said, the Canaan Avalon Nano 3S isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins power consumption and home mining score and noise level. The right pick still depends on your power cost and noise tolerance — the breakdowns above make that call concrete.
Spec Deltas
Stripped to the numbers, this is how far apart the Canaan Avalon Nano 3S and Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 sit on each measurable spec:
- Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 2400% more hashrate (6.0 vs 150.0 TH/s)
- Canaan Avalon Nano 3S 96% better power draw (140 vs 3,230 W)
- Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 8% better efficiency (23.3 vs 21.5 J/TH)
- Canaan Avalon Nano 3S 93% better weight (0.9 vs 13.0 kg)
- Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 2207% more heat output (478 vs 11,021 BTU/hr)
- Canaan Avalon Nano 3S 195% more home mining score (65.0 vs 22.0)
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.
| Canaan Avalon Nano 3S | Metric | Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 |
|---|---|---|
| $145 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $937 |
| -$0.12 | Daily net profit | -$2.29 |
| -$188 | Net after 1 year | -$1,773 |
| -$231 | Net after 2 years | -$2,609 |
| -$274 | Net after 3 years | -$3,445 |
| 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 Nano 3SScore: 65/100. 30 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Canaan AvalonMiner Made A146621.5 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Canaan Avalon Nano 3S or Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 more profitable?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Canaan Avalon Nano 3S is more profitable at $-0.12/day compared to $-2.29/day for the Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Canaan Avalon Nano 3S vs Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466: which runs at a lower noise level?
The Canaan Avalon Nano 3S is quieter at 30 dB compared to the Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Which is better for home mining, the Canaan Avalon Nano 3S or Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466?
The Canaan Avalon Nano 3S scores 65/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 22/100 for the Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
How far apart are the Canaan Avalon Nano 3S and Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 on J/TH?
The Canaan Avalon Nano 3S runs at 23.3 J/TH while the Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 runs at 21.5 J/TH — a difference of 1.8 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 8% better efficiency (23.3 vs 21.5 J/TH).