MinotaurX vs Power2B: Which Algorithm is Most Profitable for Web Mining?

By Roman Noodles, Founder of Earnify · Updated May 8, 2026

Choose the right mining algorithm for your website's audience. We compare MinotaurX, Power2B, YesPower, Yescrypt, GhostRider, and Flex across real-world hashrate, CPU compatibility, and pool support.

Why Algorithm Choice Matters

Not all mining algorithms are created equal. Your choice directly impacts revenue per visitor, device compatibility, and overall user experience. The right algorithm can mean the difference between a seamless background process and a noticeable performance drain.

Key factors that affect algorithm performance in browser environments:

• ASIC Resistance: Algorithms designed to resist specialized hardware ensure that browser-based miners remain competitive against industrial operations.
• Memory Hardness: Algorithms that require significant memory per thread perform better on modern multi-core CPUs found in consumer devices.
• Thread Scaling: How efficiently the algorithm distributes work across multiple CPU cores.
• Pool Support: Availability of stratum-compatible mining pools for the algorithm.

MinotaurX — The Default Choice

MinotaurX is Earnify's default algorithm and currently the most profitable option for browser-based mining. It was designed as an ASIC-resistant algorithm optimized for consumer-grade CPU architectures — exactly the kind of hardware your website visitors run.

Performance Profile

On a typical 8-core desktop, MinotaurX achieves approximately 1,870 H/s when running on 7 threads (n−1 configuration). It uses roughly 2MB of memory per worker, making it lightweight enough for sustained session mining without impacting browser performance.

• Memory per worker: ~2MB
• Desktop (8-core) hashrate: ~1,870 H/s
• Laptop (4-core) hashrate: ~740 H/s
• Mobile (4-core) hashrate: ~303 H/s
• ASIC-resistant: Yes — no known ASIC implementations

Power2B — The Power-Efficient Alternative

Power2B offers a different design philosophy. Where MinotaurX optimizes for raw throughput, Power2B prioritizes power efficiency and thermal stability — making it an excellent choice for mobile-first audiences and battery-constrained devices.

Performance Profile

Power2B generates slightly lower raw hashrates than MinotaurX but with measurably less CPU utilization and heat generation. For publishers with predominantly mobile traffic, this can translate to longer sustainable session durations and higher aggregate revenue.

• CPU overhead: Lower than MinotaurX at equivalent thread count
• Thermal profile: Runs cooler on sustained workloads
• Best for: Mobile-heavy audiences, battery-aware deployments

Direct Algorithm Comparison

MinotaurX Tuning: Thread Budgets, WASM vs Native, and When Each Algo Context Wins

Earnify ships MinotaurX only — so treat this section as the tuning manual for the one algorithm you can actually deploy. The other names in the table above are industry context, not build options. Get these three levers right and the same traffic earns measurably more: thread budget, throttle level, and session length.

Three rules from Earnify publisher data. One, cap at n−1 user threads and let resolveThreadCount do the math — never pin all cores, because the main thread still owns rendering and the dev thread always takes one. Two, throttle by device class, not globally — the same 50% that is silent on a desktop workstation is loud on a fanless laptop, so segment by hardwareConcurrency and battery state. Three, optimize for minutes, not megahashes — a 12-minute tutorial session at 20% throttle out-earns a 2-minute bounce at 50%, which is why transparent opt-in plus a visible stop() retains sessions 3× longer than silent mining.

When does non-MinotaurX context matter? Only as a buying guide: memory-hard designs (MinotaurX, YesPower, Yescrypt) fit consumer CPUs; compute-bound or multi-hash designs (Power2B-style, GhostRider-style) trade raw throughput for thermals or complexity — relevant if you ever evaluate a second backend, but not actionable inside Earnify today. If your audience is 70%+ mobile, do not chase a different algorithm; lower throttle, shorten worker bursts, and extend session design instead. That is the entire tuning surface, and it is enough: publishers who segment throttle by device class stabilize opt-in above 70% while keeping Core Web Vitals flat.

Which Algorithm Should You Choose?

For 95% of publishers, the answer is simple: stick with MinotaurX. It delivers the highest raw hashrate across the widest range of consumer devices and has the deepest pool support on zpool.ca. Power2B is worth considering if your analytics show 70%+ mobile traffic.

Earnify's architecture makes switching algorithms trivial — you can experiment with different algorithms using a simple configuration parameter and compare real-world revenue data from your own audience. There's no reason not to A/B test.