Overview
Investors searching GNO vs CHEEMS usually want a clear market-cap and momentum snapshot. GNO prints $105.08 (+1.59%) while CHEEMS is at $1,880.52 (+4.60%), with volume edge currently on CHEEMS.
Quick winners
Full comparison
| Metric | GNO | CHEEMS |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $105.08 | $1,880.52 |
| Market Cap | $277.08M | $101.14M |
| FDV | — | — |
| Volume 24h | $86,545.77 | $279,632.00 |
| Circulating Supply | — | — |
| Total Supply | — | — |
| Max Supply | — | — |
| Rank | 130.00 | 254.00 |
| Dominance | — | — |
| Liquidity | — | — |
| Volatility | +3.64% | +3.64% |
| ATH | — | — |
| ATL | — | — |
| ROI | — | — |
Performance
| Timeframe | GNO | CHEEMS |
|---|---|---|
| 1H | — | — |
| 24H | +1.59% | +4.60% |
| 7D | — | — |
| 30D | — | — |
| 90D | — | — |
| 1Y | — | — |
| YTD | — | — |
| ALL | — | — |
Comparative chart
Technical indicators
| Indicator | GNO | CHEEMS |
|---|---|---|
| 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
Technically, GNO shows RSI 49.02 with trend bias bearish, while CHEEMS sits at RSI 49.02 (bearish). Divergences between momentum and price should be confirmed on higher timeframes.
Fundamentals
| Metric | GNO | CHEEMS |
|---|---|---|
| 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
GNO
CHEEMS
Pros and cons
Pros of GNO
- Higher ranking for GNO can translate into tighter spreads on major venues.
- GNO has an established coin page footprint on PEPS for continuous monitoring.
- Market-cap scale on GNO may dampen some idiosyncratic shocks versus smaller peers.
Cons of GNO
- Large-cap status for GNO can mean slower percentage upside versus high-beta alternatives.
- When dominance narratives fade, GNO can lag hotter rotation names.
- Indicator stacks on GNO may stay stretched longer than expected in strong trends.
- Regulatory or macro headlines can hit GNO harder simply because it is more visible.
Pros of CHEEMS
- Diversifying versus GNO with CHEEMS can change portfolio factor exposure.
- If technical momentum aligns, CHEEMS may outperform on medium-term windows.
Cons of CHEEMS
- Smaller book depth versus large caps can increase slippage for CHEEMS.
- Weaker market-cap standing may leave CHEEMS more exposed to liquidity droughts.
- Incomplete fundamental coverage can hide operational or tokenomic risks.
- Trend failures on CHEEMS often travel faster than on more established assets.
Which looks stronger right now?
On the latest snapshot, market-cap leadership belongs to GNO, while short-term performance leans toward CHEEMS. That mix suggests relative strength can flip quickly, so size risk accordingly.
AI summary
For readers asking which is “better”, the honest answer is conditional. GNO and CHEEMS solve overlapping but not identical market jobs. On-chain and developer fields, when available, add slower-moving context beneath the tape. Missing fundamentals should be treated as unknown, not as zeros. If your thesis is long-term adoption, weight fundamentals and liquidity; if tactical, weight trend/momentum — and always define invalidation.
FAQ
Which is better, GNO or CHEEMS?
“Better” depends on horizon and risk. GNO leads on market cap today, while CHEEMS leads the 24h move — neither is a guarantee.
Which has more upside potential, GNO or CHEEMS?
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 GNO and CHEEMS.
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. CHEEMS 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 CHEEMS, but longer windows can disagree.