Overview
This page compares HASH and Celestia with live PEPS metrics. Rankings (#105 vs #121) and liquidity profiles differ, so traders often use them for distinct roles rather than as perfect substitutes.
Quick winners
Full comparison
| Metric | HASH | TIA |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $1,882.43 | $0.330900 |
| Market Cap | $435.88M | $322.88M |
| FDV | — | — |
| Volume 24h | $2,119.54 | $853,989.96 |
| Circulating Supply | — | — |
| Total Supply | — | — |
| Max Supply | — | — |
| Rank | 105.00 | 121.00 |
| Dominance | — | — |
| Liquidity | — | — |
| Volatility | +3.64% | +3.64% |
| ATH | — | — |
| ATL | — | — |
| ROI | — | — |
Performance
| Timeframe | HASH | TIA |
|---|---|---|
| 1H | — | — |
| 24H | -14.00% | +3.50% |
| 7D | — | — |
| 30D | — | — |
| 90D | — | — |
| 1Y | — | — |
| YTD | — | — |
| ALL | — | — |
Comparative chart
Technical indicators
| Indicator | HASH | TIA |
|---|---|---|
| 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
When RSI and trend disagree across HASH and Celestia, expect choppy relative performance until one side reclaims a clear structure.
Fundamentals
| Metric | HASH | TIA |
|---|---|---|
| Consensus | — | — |
| Blockchain | — | — |
| TPS | — | — |
| Block time | — | — |
| Finality | — | — |
| Validators | — | — |
| Staking | — | — |
| TVL | — | — |
| Supply model | — | — |
| Inflation | — | — |
| Developer activity | — | 33.00 |
| Github activity | — | 994.00 |
| On-chain activity | — | — |
| Whale activity | — | — |
| Addresses | — | — |
| Gas fees | — | — |
Ecosystem
HASH
Celestia
Pros and cons
Pros of HASH
- HASH has an established coin page footprint on PEPS for continuous monitoring.
- HASH typically benefits from deeper liquidity and broader market recognition inside the Top 300 set.
Cons of HASH
- When dominance narratives fade, HASH can lag hotter rotation names.
- Regulatory or macro headlines can hit HASH harder simply because it is more visible.
- Indicator stacks on HASH may stay stretched longer than expected in strong trends.
Pros of Celestia
- Diversifying versus HASH with Celestia can change portfolio factor exposure.
- Active volume bursts on TIA sometimes precede sharper tactical moves.
- PEPS tracking for Celestia still includes AI score and level context for monitoring.
- Narrative optionality around Celestia can reprice quickly when catalysts appear.
Cons of Celestia
- Trend failures on Celestia often travel faster than on more established assets.
- Weaker market-cap standing may leave Celestia more exposed to liquidity droughts.
- Incomplete fundamental coverage can hide operational or tokenomic risks.
Which looks stronger right now?
The “stronger” label here is descriptive, not predictive. HASH and Celestia can alternate leadership as macro liquidity and narrative rotate.
AI summary
This AI-assisted summary starts from live PEPS fields. HASH holds market-cap $435.88M and rank #105; Celestia shows $322.88M and #121. Where liquidity and flow matter, watch Celestia. Where durability matters, watch HASH. AI composite scores (58.20/58.20) 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, HASH or Celestia?
“Better” depends on horizon and risk. HASH leads on market cap today, while Celestia leads the 24h move — neither is a guarantee.
Which has more upside potential, HASH or TIA?
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 HASH and Celestia.
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. Celestia 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 Celestia, but longer windows can disagree.