Bitaxe Naja Duo vs Hammer Thor P2: Which Home Bitcoin Miner Makes More Sense?

Research comparison · Updated September 17, 2026

Research disclosure: CryptoCloaks has not physically tested a Naja Duo or Thor P2 for this comparison. Published specifications, independent wall-meter footage, retailer testing, and our own clearly labeled calculations are separated below. We will not present borrowed measurements as shop testing.

Quick answer

For most buyers choosing between these two, the Hammer Thor P2 is the stronger complete package. It adds more maximum hashrate, Ethernet, a much larger cooler, more power-supply headroom, fitted retail packaging, and a longer stated warranty.

Buy the Naja Duo instead if the smallest footprint and fully open Bitaxe hardware/firmware ecosystem matter more than Ethernet, a bundled high-capacity supply, or reaching 10 TH/s.

The surprising part is efficiency: once both miners are compared at the wall, neither one runs away with it. Their real figures land close enough that the decision is mostly about the machine around the chips, not the chips themselves.[1][2][3]

Check the live Hammer Thor P2 price and availability

Naja Duo vs Thor P2 at a glance

The wall-performance figures above are not all from one laboratory. Naja measurements come from independent videos referenced in Altair’s source comparison, while Thor figures come from Altair’s own wall testing. Treat them as the best public planning data we found, not a controlled CryptoCloaks shootout.[1][4][5]

The price row is a dated snapshot, not a permanent promise. Shipping, tax, stock, and future price changes are not included. Verify the live offer before buying.[1][2]

The same silicon does not make them the same miner

Both boards use two BM1373 SHA-256 chips. The open Naja project identifies itself as a dual-BM1373 design running esp-miner, and the Thor P2 uses the same chip count.[2][3]

That shared core only answers one question: what ASIC family is doing the hashing? It does not answer how much power the complete system pulls, how much cooling mass surrounds the chips, whether a wired network jack is available, what supply arrives in the box, or how much tuning headroom the seller supports.

That is why this comparison changes once the meter moves from the dashboard to the outlet.

Wall power changes the efficiency story

The Naja Duo has been advertised around 4.4 TH/s at 42W in its standard profile and 8 TH/s at 92W in an overclocked profile. Those numbers work out to an eye-catching 9.5 and 11.5 J/TH.

Independent wall-meter footage showed a different complete-system result. One test settled around 4.6 TH/s and 60W at the outlet. A higher tune reached about 8.2 TH/s while the wall meter showed roughly 131W. That works out to about 13.0 and 16.0 J/TH.[1][4][5]

Thor P2’s mode-specific wall figures are about 4.8 TH/s at 60W, 6.8 TH/s at 88W, and 10 TH/s at 157W. Those calculate to 12.5, 12.9, and 15.7 J/TH.[1][2]

The fair takeaway is not that one chip family suddenly became inefficient. A wall meter also sees the controller, display, fan, lighting, voltage-regulation losses, and AC-to-DC conversion loss. Dashboard estimates and wall measurements answer different questions.

For a power bill, room-heat estimate, or circuit plan, use the wall number.

What the modes cost to run

These are our calculations using continuous 24/7 operation for 30 days at $0.15 per kWh. They are electricity estimates, not revenue or profitability forecasts.

At the same 60W planning draw, Thor Low and the independently tested Naja standard profile cost the same to run. Thor produces slightly more reported hashrate there. At the upper end, Thor uses more total power but also reaches about 10 TH/s instead of 8.2 TH/s, leaving their calculated wall efficiencies nearly tied.

That makes Thor Normal the most interesting middle setting: more hashrate than the Naja’s tested standard profile, less heat than either high setting, and a calculated wall efficiency close to both miners’ best public wall results.

Power supply: capacity matters, but compare the right side of the brick

The Naja uses an XT30 connection and is sold with an optional 12.4V, 10A, 124W supply. Thor uses XT60 and includes a 12V, 20A, 240W supply plus US and EU AC cables.[1][2]

Thor clearly has more rated supply capacity in the box. That is useful if the buyer expects to run the higher profile or tune the machine.

There is one electrical detail worth correcting, though. A 131W reading at the AC wall cannot be compared directly with a 124W DC output rating and called an overload. The wall reading includes conversion loss inside the power supply. The Naja’s public high-tune result does appear to leave less margin than Thor’s 240W package, but proving an overload would require a DC-side output measurement, not just the AC meter.

For either miner, stay inside the seller’s supported voltage and frequency limits. A bigger number in a tuning menu is not a warranty.

Cooling and noise: construction is clear; a fair sound winner is not

The Naja takes the compact route: a Thermalright AXP90-X47 low-profile heatsink, two heatpipes, and a slim 92mm PWM fan. Thor uses a 120mm tower cooler with eight heatpipes and a 120mm ARGB fan.[1][2]

That gives Thor more cooling mass and a larger fan, while the Naja remains much easier to fit into a tight shelf or desk setup. Those physical differences are real.

A clean noise ranking is not. The Naja’s published 22.4dBA figure is a fan-component rating, not a same-distance whole-miner measurement. Thor’s published range is roughly 35–44dB by mode. Different rooms, meters, distances, supplies, and tunes can move the result. Until both miners are measured side by side under one method, “quieter” is not a defensible buying claim.

What can be said: the Naja wins the footprint battle, while Thor is built around more thermal mass and a larger airflow system.

WiFi-only or Ethernet too

Naja uses 2.4GHz WiFi. Thor supports 2.4GHz WiFi and Ethernet.[1][2]

WiFi is enough for many desks and shelves. Ethernet matters when the miner lives in a garage, basement, rack, or crowded wireless environment where a cable is easy to run. It also gives the owner one more recovery path when wireless setup becomes the problem instead of mining.

If wired networking is part of the plan, this section ends the comparison: Thor is the one that has it.

Open hardware versus a more finished appliance

Naja’s strongest advantage is not a headline efficiency figure. It is the Bitaxe model itself: openly published hardware, open firmware, browser-based AxeOS controls, USB-C recovery, and a community that expects owners to inspect and tune the machine.[3]

Thor takes the more appliance-like route. It arrives as a larger assembled package with THOR OS, three practical profiles, Ethernet, lighting controls, a 240W supply, and a fitted stand. That is easier to recommend to someone who wants choices without assembling the power and cooling plan around the board.

Neither philosophy is automatically better. The deciding question is whether you want the hardware to remain a project, or you want the project mostly finished before the box arrives.

Size, stand, and packaging

Altair estimates the Naja’s assembled footprint around 147 × 92 × 49mm and its weight around 375–405g. Thor is listed around 152 × 145 × 176mm and 820g. Those figures make the trade obvious: Naja is the compact one; Thor is the substantial one.[1]

Altair also reports a PETG stand for the Naja and an ABS stand for Thor. We would not choose a miner from filament names alone. Placement, airflow, actual stand temperature, part geometry, and print quality matter more than turning two material labels into a durability promise.

The shipping experience is different too. The Naja was reported in an anti-static bag with bubble-wrap protection. Thor’s retail package uses fitted foam for the miner, stand, and power supply. That does not change hashrate, but it does change how much hardware can move around in transit.[1]

Warranty and certification claims

The compared Naja seller lists a 90-day limited warranty. Thor carries a stated six-month manufacturer warranty.[1]

Certification needs more careful wording. Altair described CE and FCC work for Thor as pending. Pending is not the same as certified. The Naja listing did not show formal certifications. Buyers who need documented compliance for a school, event, business, or institutional purchase should request the current certificates before ordering rather than relying on a comparison badge.[1]

Published Thor figures still conflict

One current Thor product page advertises 10 TH/s at about 120W, 12 J/TH, a 12V/25A adapter, and roughly 38dB.[6] The current CryptoCloaks page and Altair’s wall-comparison data instead use 10 TH/s around 157W, a 12V/20A 240W supply, and a wider noise range.[1][2]

We are using the mode-specific wall figures for planning because they are more useful for electricity, heat, and circuit decisions. The 120W figure should not be blended into that table as though it came from the same measurement point.

This is exactly why buyers should ask three questions whenever a miner advertises power:

1. Is that ASIC power, dashboard-estimated DC power, or AC wall power?
2. Which firmware profile produced it?
3. Was the included power supply part of the measurement?

Without those answers, a precise-looking efficiency number can still be an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Which one should you buy?

Buy the Naja Duo if:

• You specifically want open Bitaxe hardware and esp-miner/AxeOS.
• The smallest footprint matters more than maximum hashrate.
• WiFi-only networking is fine.
• You enjoy choosing the power, tune, and cooling path yourself.
• Roughly 4.6–8.2 TH/s in the cited wall tests fits the job.

Buy the Thor P2 if:

• You want the stronger complete package from the two compared here.
• You want 10 TH/s capability without moving to an industrial ASIC.
• Ethernet matters.
• You want the 240W supply included instead of sizing one around the board.
• You value the larger cooler, fitted packaging, and longer stated warranty.

CryptoCloaks verdict

The Hammer Thor P2 is our pick for most people comparing these two. Real wall efficiency is close, so the Thor’s case rests on everything else: 10 TH/s at the high setting, a useful 6.8 TH/s middle mode, Ethernet, a substantially larger cooling system, an included 240W supply, and a six-month warranty.

The Naja Duo is the better specialist choice. It is smaller and more open. If those two traits are the reason you are shopping, the Thor’s extra hardware may not matter.

Do not buy either one because a dashboard shows a single-digit J/TH number. Buy the machine whose complete power, cooling, networking, warranty, and tuning model fit the room where it will run.

Shop the Hammer Thor P2

Frequently asked questions

Do the Naja Duo and Thor P2 use the same chips?

Yes. Both use two Bitmain BM1373 SHA-256 ASICs. Their different boards, power systems, coolers, firmware, and factory profiles produce different complete-system results.[1][2][3]

Is the Naja Duo really below 10 J/TH?

Its advertised standard profile is around 9.5 J/TH using the seller’s reported power. Independent wall-meter footage cited here landed around 13.0 J/TH. Both numbers can exist if they describe different measurement points, but the wall figure is the one relevant to an electric bill.[1][4][5]

Which miner has more hashrate?

Thor P2 reaches about 10 TH/s in its high profile. The cited Naja test reached about 8.2 TH/s at its higher tune.[1]

Which one uses less electricity?

It depends on the mode. The cited standard Naja result and Thor Low both use about 60W at the wall. Naja’s tested higher tune used about 131W, while Thor High used about 157W and produced more hashrate.[1][4][5]

Does the Naja Duo include a power supply?

The compared seller offered the Naja with or without a 124W XT30 supply. Thor includes a 240W XT60 supply and AC cables.[1][2]

Which miner supports Ethernet?

Thor P2 supports WiFi and Ethernet. Naja Duo is WiFi-only.[1][2]

Which miner is smaller?

Naja Duo. Thor’s larger dimensions come mainly from its 120mm fan, tower heatsink, and larger stand.[1]

Is Thor P2 FCC or CE certified?

The source comparison described CE and FCC work as pending. Buyers who require certification should request current documentation before purchase.[1]

Can either miner guarantee a solo Bitcoin block?

No. More hashrate creates more attempts, but finding a block remains probabilistic. Neither a block nor fiat profit is guaranteed.

Sources

1. Altair Technology — Bitaxe Naja Duo vs Hammer Thor P2 wall-power comparison
   https://altairtech.io/bitaxe-naja-duo-vs-hammer-thor-p2 ↥
2. CryptoCloaks — Hammer Miner Thor P2 product page
   https://www.cryptocloaks.com/product/hammer-miner-thor-p2-bitcoin-miner ↥
3. bitaxeorg — Naja Duo open-hardware repository
   https://github.com/bitaxeorg/naja-duo ↥
4. Fully Electric — Naja Duo wall-power video
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClyUSJamWLo ↥
5. Harlo Labs — Naja Duo review and wall-power video
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr1W5QHMhBc ↥
6. Altair Technology — Thor P2 product page
   https://altairtech.io/product/thor-p2-bitcoin-miner ↥