Mining Stocks lines the listed miners up against Bitcoin itself, because that is the choice a holder is actually making. Buying a miner instead of the coin is a bet that the business adds something the asset does not, and this view asks whether it has.

The comparison is deliberately narrow. Measuring these companies against the wider equity market would answer a different question, and not the one most people weighing them have in mind.

What it actually measures

Each name is rebased so the lines begin together and separate on merit. What the eye reads afterwards is relative performance, not share price, which lets a small company and a large one sit on the same axis without either flattening the other.

The accompanying table carries the same window. Change the timeframe and every figure is recomputed from the new opening point, so a name that looks dominant across a cycle can look ordinary across a quarter.

The reading that matters is the gap to the asset. A miner up strongly in a market where the coin rose further has still lost the argument, and the table is arranged to make that visible instead of celebrating the raw gain.

Equity exposure is a leveraged bet, in both directions

Miner costs are largely committed in advance while their income floats with price, so margins widen and narrow faster than the market they depend on. That is the mechanism behind the amplification, and it works just as hard on the way down.

Financing sharpens it further. Debt raised against future production and shares issued to fund expansion both change what a holder owns, so two miners with near-identical operations can deliver very different outcomes to the people who backed them.

What it does not tell you

Nothing here is an opinion on any individual business. The view reports what the market paid, and a share price already contains hopes about power contracts, hosting deals and diversification that no chart of returns can separate out.

Survivorship quietly flatters the picture. The basket holds companies that are listed today, so the ones that failed or were absorbed along the way are simply not in it, and what the chart shows is the record of the survivors.

The opening point does plenty of work. Pick a window that begins at a low for the equities and they look heroic; begin it a few months earlier and the same names look like a mistake.

How to read it

Outperforming. The listed miners have gained more ground than the asset they mine over the window on display.

In line. The equities and the coin have travelled together, so the business has added nothing and cost nothing.

Underperforming. The miners have given up ground against the coin, which usually points at margins or at shares being issued.

Mining Stocks lives on the Mining & Network dashboard among Miner Revenue, Hashprice and Production Cost.

Common questions

Why measure miners against Bitcoin?

Because that is the trade being weighed. A miner that fails to beat the asset it produces across a full cycle has not paid its holders for the extra business risk they took on.

What makes miner shares move so violently?

Committed costs against floating income. Margins expand and contract faster than price does, and borrowing and share issuance stretch the effect at both ends.

Do the table figures move with the window?

Yes. Every figure is recomputed from wherever the chosen window begins, so the ranking can reorder completely when that window moves.

Is a rising share price enough?

No. The comparison is against the coin, so a miner can climb through a rally and still have been the weaker place to hold, which is what the gap in the table exists to show.

Why do failed miners not appear?

Because the basket holds names that are listed today. That quietly improves the record, so read it as a survey of the survivors and not as the return anybody earned.