Best Mining Pools in 2026: Comparing Fees, User Ratings and Supported Coins
Choosing a mining pool involves more than finding the smallest advertised fee. A pool can charge less while offering fewer supported coins, less convenient payout options, or a less consistent experience. Reliability, payout consistency, server performance and the quality of operational support can all matter alongside the fee.
This comparison uses Minector’s internal pool data to examine 10 real mining pools by average fee, user rating, number of raters and supported coins. The figures provide a practical starting point for miners, but they should not be treated as a guarantee of future earnings or service quality.
Mining Pool Comparison at a Glance
The table below preserves the supplied data exactly. Average fees are shown as provided, while ratings are measured out of 5. The number of raters is important because a rating based on 205 responses provides a broader sample than one based on 11 or 18 responses.
| Mining pool | Average fee | User rating | Number of raters | Supported coins |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cruxpool | 1.00 | 4.80/5 | 20 | BTC, ETC, RVN, ERGO, FLUX, FIRO, ETHW, BEAM |
| Ethertrench | 0.00 | 4.20/5 | 21 | ETH, ETC, EXP |
| Whalesburg | 0.90 | 4.10/5 | 21 | ETH, ETC, UBQ, ELLA, EXP, PIRL |
| MinerGate | 1.25 | 4.00/5 | 205 | ETH, LTC, XMR, BCN, ETC, ZEC, BTG, XMC |
| UniPool | 0.17 | 4.00/5 | 20 | BCN, TRTL, XMR |
| MaxHash | 0.00 | 4.00/5 | 20 | ETH, UBQ, EXP, MUSIC |
| HashLoft | 1.47 | 4.00/5 | 18 | BTC, LTC, AUR, BCH, CANN, FLO, GAME, DGB, ZEN |
| Bit Pool Mining | 0.38 | 4.00/5 | 11 | MONA, HUSH, VTC, KMD, EXP, ETH, ETC, ZCL, BTG, BTCP |
| Nanopool | 1.00 | 3.90/5 | 44 | ETH, ETC, ZEC, XMR, RVN, CFX, ERG |
| 2Miners | 1.25 | 3.80/5 | 71 | ETH, ETC, EXP, MUSIC, PIRL, ETP, WHL, DBIX, BTG, ZEC, ZCL, ZEN, ELLA, CLO, YOC, AKA, HUSH, BTCP, BTCZ |
Which Pools Have the Lowest Fees?
Ethertrench and MaxHash have the lowest listed average fee at 0.00. UniPool follows with an average fee of 0.17, while Bit Pool Mining lists 0.38. Whalesburg is next at 0.90, and both Cruxpool and Nanopool show 1.00.
MinerGate and 2Miners each list an average fee of 1.25. HashLoft has the highest average fee in this comparison at 1.47. These figures can help miners estimate the direct cost of pool participation, but fee level alone does not reveal the complete value of a service.
Why a zero-fee pool is not automatically the best
A 0.00 fee may look attractive, but miners should also consider whether the pool consistently finds blocks, processes payouts on schedule and provides dependable connectivity. A lower fee does not automatically compensate for interruptions, delayed payments or a weaker user experience.
Miners should also check how the fee is applied, what payout threshold is used and whether any additional conditions affect payouts. Those details are not included in the supplied data, so they should be verified directly before switching a mining operation.
Highest User Ratings
Cruxpool has the highest user rating in the dataset at 4.80 out of 5, based on 20 raters. Ethertrench follows at 4.20 out of 5 from 21 raters, while Whalesburg records 4.10 out of 5 from 21 raters.
MinerGate, UniPool, MaxHash, HashLoft and Bit Pool Mining each have a rating of 4.00 out of 5. Their sample sizes differ: MinerGate has 205 raters, HashLoft has 18, and Bit Pool Mining has 11. This makes it sensible to read the rating together with the number of responses rather than treating every score as equally representative.
Nanopool has a rating of 3.90 out of 5 from 44 raters. 2Miners has the lowest rating in this group at 3.80 out of 5, based on 71 raters. A lower score does not prove that a pool is unsuitable, but it can be a reason to investigate recent user feedback and payout experiences more closely.
Supported Coins and Pool Flexibility
2Miners supports the broadest list in this comparison, with coins including ETH, ETC, EXP, MUSIC, PIRL, ETP, WHL, DBIX, BTG, ZEC, ZCL, ZEN, ELLA, CLO, YOC, AKA, HUSH, BTCP and BTCZ. This range may appeal to miners who want to change algorithms or coins without searching for a new provider each time.
Bit Pool Mining also offers a varied selection, including MONA, HUSH, VTC, KMD, EXP, ETH, ETC, ZCL, BTG and BTCP. HashLoft covers BTC, LTC, AUR, BCH, CANN, FLO, GAME, DGB and ZEN, while MinerGate supports ETH, LTC, XMR, BCN, ETC, ZEC, BTG and XMC.
Cruxpool combines BTC and several mining-focused assets, including ETC, RVN, ERGO, FLUX, FIRO, ETHW and BEAM. Nanopool supports ETH, ETC, ZEC, XMR, RVN, CFX and ERG. These options may suit miners who prioritize access to established or specialized networks within one pool ecosystem.
Other pools focus on a smaller set of supported coins. Ethertrench lists ETH, ETC and EXP; Whalesburg lists ETH, ETC, UBQ, ELLA, EXP and PIRL; UniPool lists BCN, TRTL and XMR; and MaxHash lists ETH, UBQ, EXP and MUSIC. A shorter list is not necessarily a weakness if it includes the coin a miner actually wants to mine and provides a dependable service.
How to Choose the Right Mining Pool
Match the pool to your target coin
Start by confirming that the pool supports the exact coin and mining method used by your hardware. A pool with a long coin list is useful for flexibility, but it does not matter if its supported networks do not match your equipment or operating plan.
Balance fees with payout consistency
Compare the listed fee with the pool’s payout behavior, minimum payout requirements and expected operating stability. A slightly higher fee may be reasonable if it is associated with reliable connectivity and consistent processing, while a lower fee may be less attractive if payouts are difficult to receive or service interruptions are frequent.
Read ratings in context
Ratings are useful signals, not definitive performance guarantees. Consider both the score and the number of raters, then look for recurring comments about uptime, dashboard accuracy, support responsiveness and payout timing.
Test before moving significant hashrate
When possible, begin with a limited amount of hashrate. Monitor rejected shares, connection stability, reported earnings and payout progress before directing the majority of your mining hardware to a new pool.
Conclusion
Cruxpool leads this dataset by user rating at 4.80 out of 5, while Ethertrench and MaxHash offer the lowest listed average fee at 0.00. 2Miners provides the broadest supported-coin list, and MinerGate has the largest rating sample with 205 raters.
The best choice depends on the coin being mined, fee structure, operational reliability and payout consistency. Use the supplied ratings and fees as comparison points, verify current pool conditions before connecting hardware, and remember that mining returns can change with network difficulty, coin prices, electricity costs and other market conditions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which mining pool has the lowest average fee?
Ethertrench and MaxHash have the lowest listed average fee in this comparison, at 0.00. Miners should still review payout rules, reliability and supported coin requirements before choosing either pool.
Which pool has the highest user rating?
Cruxpool has the highest rating at 4.80 out of 5, based on 20 raters. The rating is a useful indicator of user sentiment, but the sample size should be considered when comparing it with other pools.
Which mining pool supports the most coins?
2Miners supports the broadest list in the supplied data, including ETH, ETC, EXP, MUSIC, PIRL, ETP, WHL, DBIX, BTG, ZEC, ZCL, ZEN, ELLA, CLO, YOC, AKA, HUSH, BTCP and BTCZ.
Is the cheapest mining pool always the best?
No. Fees are only one part of the decision. Reliable connections, consistent payouts, suitable payout thresholds and practical support can be more important than selecting the lowest listed fee.
