Skip to content

We're upgrading our operations to serve you better. Orders ship as usual from Laval, QC. Questions? Contact us

Bitcoin accepted at checkout  |  Ships from Laval, QC, Canada  |  Expert support since 2016

iBeLink BM-K1

iBeLink BM-K1

Hashrate 5.3 TH/s Power 835 W Efficiency 157.6 J/TH
VS
iBeLink BM-N3

iBeLink BM-N3

Hashrate 25.0 TH/s Power 3,300 W Efficiency 132.0 J/TH

iBeLink BM-K1 vs iBeLink BM-N3

Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.

Specifications Comparison

iBeLink BM-K1 Specification iBeLink BM-N3
5.3 TH/s Hashrate 25.0 TH/s
835 W Power Consumption 3,300 W
157.6 J/TH Efficiency 132.0 J/TH
Noise Level
6,600.0 kg Weight
2,849 BTU/hr BTU Output 11,260 BTU/hr
28/100 Home Mining Score 22/100
Release Year
Blake2s Algorithm Eaglesong
iBeLink Manufacturer iBeLink

Profitability Comparison

$/kWh

iBeLink BM-K1

Daily Revenue 0.00000244 BTC $0.19
Daily Electricity -$2.00
Daily Profit -$1.81
Monthly -$54.40
Yearly -$661.89

iBeLink BM-N3

Daily Revenue 0.00001150 BTC $0.90
Daily Electricity -$7.92
Daily Profit -$7.02
Monthly -$210.63
Yearly -$2,562.62

Based on BTC price of $78,153 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.

Verdict

Weighing six performance factors, the iBeLink BM-N3 comes out ahead — it takes 3 of 5 (efficiency, hashrate, price-performance). Its biggest concrete edge: 372% more hashrate (5.3 vs 25.0 TH/s). The iBeLink BM-K1 claws back ground on power consumption and home mining score. Review the detailed specs and profitability calculations above to determine which miner best fits your specific setup.

Winner: iBeLink BM-N3 — wins on 3 of 5 factors

Spec Deltas

Stripped to the numbers, this is how far apart the iBeLink BM-K1 and iBeLink BM-N3 sit on each measurable spec:

  • iBeLink BM-N3 372% more hashrate (5.3 vs 25.0 TH/s)
  • iBeLink BM-K1 75% better power draw (835 vs 3,300 W)
  • iBeLink BM-N3 16% better efficiency (158 vs 132 J/TH)
  • iBeLink BM-N3 295% more heat output (2,849 vs 11,260 BTU/hr)
  • iBeLink BM-K1 27% more home mining score (28.0 vs 22.0)

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.

iBeLink BM-K1 Metric iBeLink BM-N3
$9,855 Upfront cost (MSRP) $980
-$1.81 Daily net profit -$7.02
-$10,517 Net after 1 year -$3,543
-$11,179 Net after 2 years -$6,105
-$11,841 Net after 3 years -$8,668
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

Tie

Both miners produce similar daily profit.

Best for Home Mining

iBeLink BM-K1

Score: 28/100. 0 dB noise level.

Best for Efficiency

iBeLink BM-N3

132.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which makes more money, the iBeLink BM-K1 or the iBeLink BM-N3?

At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the iBeLink BM-K1 is more profitable at $-1.81/day compared to $-7.02/day for the iBeLink BM-N3. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.

iBeLink BM-K1 vs iBeLink BM-N3: which runs at a lower noise level?

Both miners have similar noise levels. Check the specs table above for exact decibel readings.

Which is better for home mining, the iBeLink BM-K1 or iBeLink BM-N3?

The iBeLink BM-K1 scores 28/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 22/100 for the iBeLink BM-N3). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.

iBeLink BM-K1 vs iBeLink BM-N3: how much does the efficiency gap matter?

The iBeLink BM-K1 runs at 157.6 J/TH while the iBeLink BM-N3 runs at 132.0 J/TH — a difference of 25.6 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 16% better efficiency (158 vs 132 J/TH).