MicroBT Whatsminer M20S vs Whatsminer M30S++ (Hydro)
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| MicroBT Whatsminer M20S | Specification | Whatsminer M30S++ (Hydro) |
|---|---|---|
| 68.0 TH/s | Hashrate | 112.0 TH/s |
| 3,360 W | Power Consumption | 3,472 W |
| 49.4 J/TH | Efficiency | 31.0 J/TH |
| — | Noise Level | 50 dB |
| 12,500.0 kg | Weight | 12.0 kg |
| 11,464 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 11,847 BTU/hr |
| 22/100 | Home Mining Score | 50/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithm | SHA-256 |
| MicroBT | Manufacturer | MicroBT |
Profitability Comparison
MicroBT Whatsminer M20S
Whatsminer M30S++ (Hydro)
Based on BTC price of $76,932 and current network difficulty as of May 18, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Run the numbers across every spec and the Whatsminer M30S++ (Hydro) edges it: 4 of 6 factors go its way (efficiency, hashrate, home mining score, noise level). Its biggest concrete edge: 65% more hashrate (68.0 vs 112.0 TH/s). That said, the MicroBT Whatsminer M20S isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins power consumption and price-performance. Review the detailed specs and profitability calculations above to determine which miner best fits your specific setup.
Spec Deltas
Stripped to the numbers, this is how far apart the MicroBT Whatsminer M20S and Whatsminer M30S++ (Hydro) sit on each measurable spec:
- Whatsminer M30S++ (Hydro) 65% more hashrate (68.0 vs 112.0 TH/s)
- MicroBT Whatsminer M20S 3% better power draw (3,360 vs 3,472 W)
- Whatsminer M30S++ (Hydro) 37% better efficiency (49.4 vs 31.0 J/TH)
- Whatsminer M30S++ (Hydro) 100% better weight (12,500.0 vs 12.0 kg)
- Whatsminer M30S++ (Hydro) 3% more heat output (11,464 vs 11,847 BTU/hr)
- Whatsminer M30S++ (Hydro) 127% more home mining score (22.0 vs 50.0)
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.
| MicroBT Whatsminer M20S | Metric | Whatsminer M30S++ (Hydro) |
|---|---|---|
| $66 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $3,000 |
| -$5.66 | Daily net profit | -$4.37 |
| -$2,131 | Net after 1 year | -$4,594 |
| -$4,195 | Net after 2 years | -$6,188 |
| -$6,260 | Net after 3 years | -$7,783 |
| 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
Whatsminer M30S++ (Hydro)Score: 50/100. 50 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Whatsminer M30S++ (Hydro)31.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which makes more money, the MicroBT Whatsminer M20S or the Whatsminer M30S++ (Hydro)?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Whatsminer M30S++ (Hydro) is more profitable at $-4.37/day compared to $-5.66/day for the MicroBT Whatsminer M20S. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Which is quieter, the MicroBT Whatsminer M20S or Whatsminer M30S++ (Hydro)?
The Whatsminer M30S++ (Hydro) is quieter at 50 dB compared to the MicroBT Whatsminer M20S at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
For mining at home, should I pick the MicroBT Whatsminer M20S or the Whatsminer M30S++ (Hydro)?
The Whatsminer M30S++ (Hydro) scores 50/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 22/100 for the MicroBT Whatsminer M20S). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
MicroBT Whatsminer M20S vs Whatsminer M30S++ (Hydro): how much does the efficiency gap matter?
The MicroBT Whatsminer M20S runs at 49.4 J/TH while the Whatsminer M30S++ (Hydro) runs at 31.0 J/TH — a difference of 18.4 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 37% better efficiency (49.4 vs 31.0 J/TH).