Overview
From a portfolio lens, PAXG ($1.80B) and Gnosis ($278.88M) offer different beta to bitcoin cycles. The overview below keeps the facts first and the narrative second.
Quick winners
Full comparison
| Metric | PAXG | GNO |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $4,076.57 | $105.61 |
| Market Cap | $1.80B | $278.88M |
| FDV | — | — |
| Volume 24h | $5.05M | $683,012.00 |
| Circulating Supply | — | — |
| Total Supply | — | — |
| Max Supply | — | — |
| Rank | 44.00 | 130.00 |
| Dominance | — | — |
| Liquidity | — | — |
| Volatility | +3.64% | +3.64% |
| ATH | — | — |
| ATL | — | — |
| ROI | — | — |
Performance
| Timeframe | PAXG | GNO |
|---|---|---|
| 1H | — | — |
| 24H | +0.68% | +2.30% |
| 7D | — | — |
| 30D | — | — |
| 90D | — | — |
| 1Y | — | — |
| YTD | — | — |
| ALL | — | — |
Comparative chart
Technical indicators
| Indicator | PAXG | GNO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI | 49.02 | 49.02 |
| MACD histogram | — | — |
| EMA20 | — | — |
| EMA50 | — | — |
| EMA100 | — | — |
| EMA200 | — | — |
| SMA50 | — | — |
| SMA200 | — | — |
| ATR | 67.35 | 67.35 |
| ADX | 21.33 | 21.33 |
| Support | 1,827.82 | 1,827.82 |
| Resistance | 1,960.30 | 1,960.30 |
| Trend | bearish | bearish |
| Momentum | 59.00 | 59.00 |
| Signal | neutral | neutral |
Automatic technical analysis
Automated technical notes for this pair highlight bearish conditions on PAXG and bearish on GNO. Volatility differences can amplify short-term gaps.
Fundamentals
| Metric | PAXG | GNO |
|---|---|---|
| Consensus | — | — |
| Blockchain | — | — |
| TPS | — | — |
| Block time | — | — |
| Finality | — | — |
| Validators | — | — |
| Staking | — | — |
| TVL | — | — |
| Supply model | — | — |
| Inflation | — | — |
| Developer activity | — | — |
| Github activity | — | — |
| On-chain activity | — | — |
| Whale activity | — | — |
| Addresses | — | — |
| Gas fees | — | — |
Ecosystem
PAXG
Gnosis
Pros and cons
Pros of PAXG
- Composite PEPS readings for PAXG can surface clearer module agreement during trend phases.
- PAXG typically benefits from deeper liquidity and broader market recognition inside the Top 300 set.
- Higher ranking for PAXG can translate into tighter spreads on major venues.
Cons of PAXG
- Large-cap status for PAXG can mean slower percentage upside versus high-beta alternatives.
- When dominance narratives fade, PAXG can lag hotter rotation names.
- Data gaps in niche fundamentals still apply — absence of a field is not confirmation.
Pros of Gnosis
- Diversifying versus PAXG with Gnosis can change portfolio factor exposure.
- Active volume bursts on GNO sometimes precede sharper tactical moves.
- If technical momentum aligns, Gnosis may outperform on medium-term windows.
Cons of Gnosis
- Weaker market-cap standing may leave Gnosis more exposed to liquidity droughts.
- Smaller book depth versus large caps can increase slippage for Gnosis.
- Relative underperformance versus PAXG can persist through entire market regimes.
Which looks stronger right now?
Across winners above, no single coin dominates every column. Prefer scenarios: trend continuation favors the side with aligned momentum; mean-reversion favors the side stretched on RSI.
AI summary
This AI-assisted summary starts from live PEPS fields. PAXG holds market-cap $1.80B and rank #44; Gnosis shows $278.88M and #130. Where liquidity and flow matter, watch PAXG. Where durability matters, watch PAXG. AI composite scores (56.80/58.20) compress those tensions into a single lens. In probabilistic terms, the side winning more columns may have a nearer-term edge, but tails remain fat. Revisit after the next hourly refresh.
FAQ
Which is better, PAXG or Gnosis?
“Better” depends on horizon and risk. PAXG leads on market cap today, while Gnosis leads the 24h move — neither is a guarantee.
Which has more upside potential, PAXG or GNO?
Higher-beta assets can move more in both directions. Use performance tables and volatility, not headlines, to judge potential ranges.
Which is less risky right now?
Lower volatility and deeper liquidity usually imply milder path risk, but crypto tails remain large for both PAXG and Gnosis.
Which has stronger developer activity?
Check the fundamentals table for developer/github fields when populated. Missing values mean the feed has no reliable reading yet.
Which looks more decentralized?
Decentralization is multi-dimensional (validators, client diversity, token distribution). This page surfaces available consensus/validator fields without over-claiming.
Which has lower fees?
Fee comparisons belong to each network’s fee market. Where gas/fee metrics exist in fundamentals, compare them; otherwise verify on explorers.
Which is better for investing?
Investing choices need personal constraints. Use this comparison as research input, then size positions with an explicit invalidation plan.
Which is better for staking?
If staking fields are present, compare yield mechanics and lockups off-platform. Staking returns are not risk-free.
Which is more used day to day?
Volume, on-chain activity and ecosystem links are practical usage proxies. PAXG currently leads traded volume on this snapshot.
Which has the better recent performance?
See the performance table across 1h through 1y. The 24h leader is Gnosis, but longer windows can disagree.