Overview
From a portfolio lens, FLR ($546.01M) and SAND ($129.61M) offer different beta to bitcoin cycles. The overview below keeps the facts first and the narrative second.
Quick winners
Full comparison
| Metric | FLR | SAND |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $1,874.22 | $0.043220 |
| Market Cap | $546.01M | $129.61M |
| FDV | — | — |
| Volume 24h | $1.53M | $453,000.54 |
| Circulating Supply | — | — |
| Total Supply | — | — |
| Max Supply | — | — |
| Rank | 94.00 | 233.00 |
| Dominance | — | — |
| Liquidity | — | — |
| Volatility | +3.64% | +3.64% |
| ATH | — | — |
| ATL | — | — |
| ROI | — | — |
Performance
| Timeframe | FLR | SAND |
|---|---|---|
| 1H | — | — |
| 24H | +1.80% | +4.60% |
| 7D | — | — |
| 30D | — | — |
| 90D | — | — |
| 1Y | — | — |
| YTD | — | — |
| ALL | — | — |
Comparative chart
Technical indicators
| Indicator | FLR | SAND |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 63.00 | 63.00 |
| Signal | neutral | neutral |
Automatic technical analysis
Relative technical health favors reading both charts side by side. AI scores (58.40 vs 58.40) summarize PEPS modules, but supports and resistances still decide invalidation.
Fundamentals
| Metric | FLR | SAND |
|---|---|---|
| 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
FLR
SAND
Pros and cons
Pros of FLR
- Market-cap scale on FLR may dampen some idiosyncratic shocks versus smaller peers.
- FLR has an established coin page footprint on PEPS for continuous monitoring.
- FLR often anchors narratives that attract sustained media and analyst coverage.
Cons of FLR
- Crowded positioning around FLR sometimes amplifies squeeze or flush risk.
- Large-cap status for FLR can mean slower percentage upside versus high-beta alternatives.
Pros of SAND
- SAND can offer higher relative beta when market attention rotates toward its niche.
- Diversifying versus FLR with SAND can change portfolio factor exposure.
- PEPS tracking for SAND still includes AI score and level context for monitoring.
Cons of SAND
- Incomplete fundamental coverage can hide operational or tokenomic risks.
- Higher volatility on SAND cuts both ways and demands stricter risk limits.
- Trend failures on SAND often travel faster than on more established assets.
Which looks stronger right now?
If you weight capitalization and liquidity, FLR looks sturdier; if you weight 24h tape, SAND is ahead. A balanced view treats both as incomplete signals.
AI summary
PEPS synthesizes module output into a readable pair brief. Headline stats put FLR at $1,874.22 and SAND at $0.043220. Relative performance over 24h (SAND) is a short window. Pair it with 30d/1y rows before inferring regime change. Return to related comparisons and individual coin intelligence pages to validate whether the relative story still holds after fresh prints.
FAQ
Which is better, FLR or SAND?
“Better” depends on horizon and risk. FLR leads on market cap today, while SAND leads the 24h move — neither is a guarantee.
Which has more upside potential, FLR or SAND?
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 FLR and SAND.
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. FLR 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 SAND, but longer windows can disagree.