Overview
PEPS ranks this pair inside the Top 300 market-cap universe. That means Arbitrum and GNO are liquid enough for an indexable comparison, with metrics refreshed on the hourly coin pipeline.
Quick winners
Full comparison
| Metric | ARB | GNO |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $0.081500 | $105.08 |
| Market Cap | $543.44M | $277.08M |
| FDV | — | — |
| Volume 24h | $4.38M | $86,545.77 |
| Circulating Supply | — | — |
| Total Supply | — | — |
| Max Supply | — | — |
| Rank | 95.00 | 130.00 |
| Dominance | — | — |
| Liquidity | — | — |
| Volatility | +5.47% | +3.64% |
| ATH | — | — |
| ATL | — | — |
| ROI | — | — |
Performance
| Timeframe | ARB | GNO |
|---|---|---|
| 1H | — | — |
| 24H | +3.95% | +1.59% |
| 7D | — | — |
| 30D | — | — |
| 90D | — | — |
| 1Y | — | — |
| YTD | — | — |
| ALL | — | — |
Comparative chart
Technical indicators
| Indicator | ARB | GNO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI | 42.16 | 49.02 |
| MACD histogram | — | — |
| EMA20 | — | — |
| EMA50 | — | — |
| EMA100 | — | — |
| EMA200 | — | — |
| SMA50 | — | — |
| SMA200 | — | — |
| ATR | 0.00 | 67.35 |
| ADX | 22.88 | 21.33 |
| Support | 0.08 | 1,827.82 |
| Resistance | 0.09 | 1,960.30 |
| Trend | bearish | bearish |
| Momentum | — | 63.00 |
| Signal | neutral | neutral |
Automatic technical analysis
Indicator stacks for ARB/GNO currently lean on separate regimes: bearish versus bearish. Treat MACD and RSI as context, not as standalone entry triggers.
Fundamentals
| Metric | ARB | GNO |
|---|---|---|
| Consensus | — | — |
| Blockchain | — | — |
| TPS | — | — |
| Block time | — | — |
| Finality | — | — |
| Validators | — | — |
| Staking | — | — |
| TVL | — | — |
| Supply model | — | — |
| Inflation | — | — |
| Developer activity | 4.00 | — |
| Github activity | 101.00 | — |
| On-chain activity | — | — |
| Whale activity | — | — |
| Addresses | — | — |
| Gas fees | — | — |
Ecosystem
Arbitrum
GNO
Pros and cons
Pros of Arbitrum
- Market-cap scale on Arbitrum may dampen some idiosyncratic shocks versus smaller peers.
- ARB often anchors narratives that attract sustained media and analyst coverage.
- Composite PEPS readings for Arbitrum can surface clearer module agreement during trend phases.
Cons of Arbitrum
- Data gaps in niche fundamentals still apply — absence of a field is not confirmation.
- Crowded positioning around ARB sometimes amplifies squeeze or flush risk.
- Large-cap status for Arbitrum can mean slower percentage upside versus high-beta alternatives.
Pros of GNO
- If technical momentum aligns, GNO may outperform on medium-term windows.
- Diversifying versus Arbitrum with GNO can change portfolio factor exposure.
- PEPS tracking for GNO still includes AI score and level context for monitoring.
Cons of GNO
- Incomplete fundamental coverage can hide operational or tokenomic risks.
- Relative underperformance versus Arbitrum can persist through entire market regimes.
- Smaller book depth versus large caps can increase slippage for GNO.
Which looks stronger right now?
Data currently points to a probabilistic edge for Arbitrum on size and Arbitrum on activity. Neither reading guarantees future returns.
AI summary
In about three hundred words of context: Arbitrum (ARB) trades near $0.081500 with a +3.95% day move, while GNO (GNO) is around $105.08 (+1.59%). Volume leadership currently sits with Arbitrum, and market-cap leadership with Arbitrum. Technical trend labels read bearish vs bearish, with RSI near 42.16/49.02. 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, Arbitrum or GNO?
“Better” depends on horizon and risk. Arbitrum leads on market cap today, while Arbitrum leads the 24h move — neither is a guarantee.
Which has more upside potential, ARB 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 Arbitrum and GNO.
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. Arbitrum 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 Arbitrum, but longer windows can disagree.