Overview
Whether you arrived from a “NEAR Protocol vs WLD” query or from PEPS coin pages, this hub aggregates ranks, performance and module-backed signals into one canonical URL.
Quick winners
Full comparison
| Metric | NEAR | WLD |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $1.72 | $0.315700 |
| Market Cap | $2.35B | $1.13B |
| FDV | — | — |
| Volume 24h | $15.86M | $9.97M |
| Circulating Supply | — | — |
| Total Supply | — | — |
| Max Supply | — | — |
| Rank | 39.00 | 61.00 |
| Dominance | — | — |
| Liquidity | — | — |
| Volatility | +5.80% | +3.50% |
| ATH | — | — |
| ATL | — | — |
| ROI | — | — |
Performance
| Timeframe | NEAR | WLD |
|---|---|---|
| 1H | — | — |
| 24H | +2.81% | +4.85% |
| 7D | — | — |
| 30D | — | — |
| 90D | — | — |
| 1Y | — | — |
| YTD | — | — |
| ALL | — | — |
Comparative chart
Technical indicators
| Indicator | NEAR | WLD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI | 41.87 | 54.31 |
| MACD histogram | — | — |
| EMA20 | — | — |
| EMA50 | — | — |
| EMA100 | — | — |
| EMA200 | — | — |
| SMA50 | — | — |
| SMA200 | — | — |
| ATR | 0.10 | 66.45 |
| ADX | 13.52 | 20.44 |
| Support | 1.61 | 1,827.82 |
| Resistance | 1.88 | 1,960.30 |
| Trend | neutral | bearish |
| Momentum | — | 59.00 |
| Signal | neutral | neutral |
Automatic technical analysis
Indicator stacks for NEAR/WLD currently lean on separate regimes: neutral versus bearish. Treat MACD and RSI as context, not as standalone entry triggers.
Fundamentals
| Metric | NEAR | WLD |
|---|---|---|
| Consensus | — | — |
| Blockchain | — | — |
| TPS | — | — |
| Block time | — | — |
| Finality | — | — |
| Validators | — | — |
| Staking | — | — |
| TVL | — | — |
| Supply model | — | — |
| Inflation | — | — |
| Developer activity | 103.00 | — |
| Github activity | 2,590.00 | — |
| On-chain activity | — | — |
| Whale activity | — | — |
| Addresses | — | — |
| Gas fees | — | — |
Ecosystem
NEAR Protocol
WLD
Pros and cons
Pros of NEAR Protocol
- NEAR often anchors narratives that attract sustained media and analyst coverage.
- Higher ranking for NEAR Protocol can translate into tighter spreads on major venues.
Cons of NEAR Protocol
- Data gaps in niche fundamentals still apply — absence of a field is not confirmation.
- Indicator stacks on NEAR Protocol may stay stretched longer than expected in strong trends.
- When dominance narratives fade, NEAR Protocol can lag hotter rotation names.
Pros of WLD
- If technical momentum aligns, WLD may outperform on medium-term windows.
- WLD can offer higher relative beta when market attention rotates toward its niche.
- Diversifying versus NEAR Protocol with WLD can change portfolio factor exposure.
- PEPS tracking for WLD still includes AI score and level context for monitoring.
Cons of WLD
- Relative underperformance versus NEAR Protocol can persist through entire market regimes.
- Higher volatility on WLD cuts both ways and demands stricter risk limits.
- Trend failures on WLD often travel faster than on more established assets.
Which looks stronger right now?
Data currently points to a probabilistic edge for NEAR Protocol on size and NEAR Protocol on activity. Neither reading guarantees future returns.
AI summary
PEPS synthesizes module output into a readable pair brief. Headline stats put NEAR Protocol at $1.72 and WLD at $0.315700. Relative performance over 24h (WLD) 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, NEAR Protocol or WLD?
“Better” depends on horizon and risk. NEAR Protocol leads on market cap today, while WLD leads the 24h move — neither is a guarantee.
Which has more upside potential, NEAR or WLD?
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 NEAR Protocol and WLD.
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. NEAR Protocol 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 WLD, but longer windows can disagree.