Overview
Investors searching POL vs GNO usually want a clear market-cap and momentum snapshot. POL (ex-MATIC) prints $0.072958 (+0.60%) while Gnosis is at $104.13 (-1.00%), with volume edge currently on POL (ex-MATIC).
Quick winners
Full comparison
| Metric | POL | GNO |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $0.072958 | $104.13 |
| Market Cap | $779.64M | $274.90M |
| FDV | — | — |
| Volume 24h | $19.67M | $769,004.00 |
| Circulating Supply | — | — |
| Total Supply | — | — |
| Max Supply | — | — |
| Rank | 78.00 | 129.00 |
| Dominance | — | — |
| Liquidity | — | — |
| Volatility | +3.66% | +3.64% |
| ATH | — | — |
| ATL | — | — |
| ROI | — | — |
Performance
| Timeframe | POL | GNO |
|---|---|---|
| 1H | — | — |
| 24H | +0.60% | -1.00% |
| 7D | — | — |
| 30D | — | — |
| 90D | — | — |
| 1Y | — | — |
| YTD | — | — |
| ALL | — | — |
Comparative chart
Technical indicators
| Indicator | POL | GNO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI | 35.61 | 49.02 |
| MACD histogram | — | — |
| EMA20 | — | — |
| EMA50 | — | — |
| EMA100 | — | — |
| EMA200 | — | — |
| SMA50 | — | — |
| SMA200 | — | — |
| ATR | 0.00 | 67.35 |
| ADX | 24.06 | 21.33 |
| Support | 0.07 | 1,827.82 |
| Resistance | 0.08 | 1,960.30 |
| Trend | bearish | bearish |
| Momentum | — | 65.00 |
| Signal | neutral | neutral |
Automatic technical analysis
Technically, POL (ex-MATIC) shows RSI 35.61 with trend bias bearish, while Gnosis sits at RSI 49.02 (bearish). Divergences between momentum and price should be confirmed on higher timeframes.
Fundamentals
| Metric | POL | GNO |
|---|---|---|
| Consensus | — | — |
| Blockchain | — | — |
| TPS | — | — |
| Block time | — | — |
| Finality | — | — |
| Validators | — | — |
| Staking | — | — |
| TVL | — | — |
| Supply model | — | — |
| Inflation | — | — |
| Developer activity | 0.00 | — |
| Github activity | 0.00 | — |
| On-chain activity | — | — |
| Whale activity | — | — |
| Addresses | — | — |
| Gas fees | — | — |
Ecosystem
POL (ex-MATIC)
Gnosis
Pros and cons
Pros of POL (ex-MATIC)
- Market-cap scale on POL (ex-MATIC) may dampen some idiosyncratic shocks versus smaller peers.
- POL often anchors narratives that attract sustained media and analyst coverage.
- Higher ranking for POL (ex-MATIC) can translate into tighter spreads on major venues.
Cons of POL (ex-MATIC)
- Indicator stacks on POL (ex-MATIC) may stay stretched longer than expected in strong trends.
- Large-cap status for POL (ex-MATIC) can mean slower percentage upside versus high-beta alternatives.
- Data gaps in niche fundamentals still apply — absence of a field is not confirmation.
Pros of Gnosis
- PEPS tracking for Gnosis still includes AI score and level context for monitoring.
- If technical momentum aligns, Gnosis may outperform on medium-term windows.
- Active volume bursts on GNO sometimes precede sharper tactical moves.
Cons of Gnosis
- Incomplete fundamental coverage can hide operational or tokenomic risks.
- Weaker market-cap standing may leave Gnosis more exposed to liquidity droughts.
- Higher volatility on GNO cuts both ways and demands stricter risk limits.
Which looks stronger right now?
On the latest snapshot, market-cap leadership belongs to POL (ex-MATIC), while short-term performance leans toward POL (ex-MATIC). That mix suggests relative strength can flip quickly, so size risk accordingly.
AI summary
In about three hundred words of context: POL (ex-MATIC) (POL) trades near $0.072958 with a +0.60% day move, while Gnosis (GNO) is around $104.13 (-1.00%). Volume leadership currently sits with POL (ex-MATIC), and market-cap leadership with POL (ex-MATIC). Technical trend labels read bearish vs bearish, with RSI near 35.61/49.02. Bottom line: use this page as a structured checklist, then open each coin page and related PEPS tools before acting. Nothing here is financial advice.
FAQ
Which is better, POL (ex-MATIC) or Gnosis?
“Better” depends on horizon and risk. POL (ex-MATIC) leads on market cap today, while POL (ex-MATIC) leads the 24h move — neither is a guarantee.
Which has more upside potential, POL 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 POL (ex-MATIC) 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. POL (ex-MATIC) 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 POL (ex-MATIC), but longer windows can disagree.