Overview
From a portfolio lens, Uniswap ($2.43B) and GNO ($276.73M) offer different beta to bitcoin cycles. The overview below keeps the facts first and the narrative second.
Quick winners
Full comparison
| Metric | UNI | GNO |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $4.19 | $104.86 |
| Market Cap | $2.43B | $276.73M |
| FDV | — | — |
| Volume 24h | $13.05M | $77,613.35 |
| Circulating Supply | — | — |
| Total Supply | — | — |
| Max Supply | — | — |
| Rank | 36.00 | 130.00 |
| Dominance | — | — |
| Liquidity | — | — |
| Volatility | +6.05% | +3.50% |
| ATH | — | — |
| ATL | — | — |
| ROI | — | — |
Performance
| Timeframe | UNI | GNO |
|---|---|---|
| 1H | — | — |
| 24H | +2.74% | +1.75% |
| 7D | — | — |
| 30D | — | — |
| 90D | — | — |
| 1Y | — | — |
| YTD | — | — |
| ALL | — | — |
Comparative chart
Technical indicators
| Indicator | UNI | GNO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI | 64.00 | 54.31 |
| MACD histogram | — | — |
| EMA20 | — | — |
| EMA50 | — | — |
| EMA100 | — | — |
| EMA200 | — | — |
| SMA50 | — | — |
| SMA200 | — | — |
| ATR | 0.26 | 66.45 |
| ADX | 41.22 | 20.44 |
| Support | 3.53 | 1,827.82 |
| Resistance | 5.75 | 1,960.30 |
| Trend | bearish | bearish |
| Momentum | — | 59.00 |
| Signal | neutral | neutral |
Automatic technical analysis
Automated technical notes for this pair highlight bearish conditions on UNI and bearish on GNO. Volatility differences can amplify short-term gaps.
Fundamentals
| Metric | UNI | GNO |
|---|---|---|
| Consensus | — | — |
| Blockchain | — | — |
| TPS | — | — |
| Block time | — | — |
| Finality | — | — |
| Validators | — | — |
| Staking | — | — |
| TVL | — | — |
| Supply model | — | — |
| Inflation | — | — |
| Developer activity | 0.00 | — |
| Github activity | 5,019.00 | — |
| On-chain activity | — | — |
| Whale activity | — | — |
| Addresses | — | — |
| Gas fees | — | — |
Ecosystem
Uniswap
GNO
Pros and cons
Pros of Uniswap
- Uniswap typically benefits from deeper liquidity and broader market recognition inside the Top 300 set.
- Composite PEPS readings for Uniswap can surface clearer module agreement during trend phases.
- UNI often anchors narratives that attract sustained media and analyst coverage.
Cons of Uniswap
- Data gaps in niche fundamentals still apply — absence of a field is not confirmation.
- Indicator stacks on Uniswap may stay stretched longer than expected in strong trends.
- When dominance narratives fade, Uniswap can lag hotter rotation names.
Pros of GNO
- GNO can offer higher relative beta when market attention rotates toward its niche.
- PEPS tracking for GNO still includes AI score and level context for monitoring.
- Narrative optionality around GNO can reprice quickly when catalysts appear.
- If technical momentum aligns, GNO may outperform on medium-term windows.
Cons of GNO
- Relative underperformance versus Uniswap can persist through entire market regimes.
- Weaker market-cap standing may leave GNO more exposed to liquidity droughts.
- Incomplete fundamental coverage can hide operational or tokenomic risks.
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. Uniswap holds market-cap $2.43B and rank #36; GNO shows $276.73M and #130. Where liquidity and flow matter, watch Uniswap. Where durability matters, watch Uniswap. AI composite scores (46.10/56.80) 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, Uniswap or GNO?
“Better” depends on horizon and risk. Uniswap leads on market cap today, while Uniswap leads the 24h move — neither is a guarantee.
Which has more upside potential, UNI 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 Uniswap and GNO.
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. Uniswap 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 Uniswap, but longer windows can disagree.