Overview
This page compares PAXG and Raydium with live PEPS metrics. Rankings (#44 vs #179) and liquidity profiles differ, so traders often use them for distinct roles rather than as perfect substitutes.
Quick winners
Full comparison
| Metric | PAXG | RAY |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $4,060.99 | $0.606450 |
| Market Cap | $1.79B | $163.42M |
| FDV | — | — |
| Volume 24h | $3.72M | $7.95M |
| Circulating Supply | — | — |
| Total Supply | — | — |
| Max Supply | — | — |
| Rank | 44.00 | 179.00 |
| Dominance | — | — |
| Liquidity | — | — |
| Volatility | +3.64% | +3.64% |
| ATH | — | — |
| ATL | — | — |
| ROI | — | — |
Performance
| Timeframe | PAXG | RAY |
|---|---|---|
| 1H | — | — |
| 24H | +0.40% | -0.30% |
| 7D | — | — |
| 30D | — | — |
| 90D | — | — |
| 1Y | — | — |
| YTD | — | — |
| ALL | — | — |
Comparative chart
Technical indicators
| Indicator | PAXG | RAY |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 67.00 | 67.00 |
| Signal | neutral | neutral |
Automatic technical analysis
Indicator stacks for PAXG/RAY currently lean on separate regimes: bearish versus bearish. Treat MACD and RSI as context, not as standalone entry triggers.
Fundamentals
| Metric | PAXG | RAY |
|---|---|---|
| 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
PAXG
Raydium
Pros and cons
Pros of PAXG
- Composite PEPS readings for PAXG can surface clearer module agreement during trend phases.
- PAXG has an established coin page footprint on PEPS for continuous monitoring.
- PAXG often anchors narratives that attract sustained media and analyst coverage.
Cons of PAXG
- When dominance narratives fade, PAXG can lag hotter rotation names.
- Large-cap status for PAXG can mean slower percentage upside versus high-beta alternatives.
- Data gaps in niche fundamentals still apply — absence of a field is not confirmation.
- Regulatory or macro headlines can hit PAXG harder simply because it is more visible.
Pros of Raydium
- Active volume bursts on RAY sometimes precede sharper tactical moves.
- Narrative optionality around Raydium can reprice quickly when catalysts appear.
- PEPS tracking for Raydium still includes AI score and level context for monitoring.
Cons of Raydium
- Smaller book depth versus large caps can increase slippage for Raydium.
- Relative underperformance versus PAXG can persist through entire market regimes.
- Trend failures on Raydium often travel faster than on more established assets.
Which looks stronger right now?
Data currently points to a probabilistic edge for PAXG on size and Raydium on activity. Neither reading guarantees future returns.
AI summary
This AI-assisted summary starts from live PEPS fields. PAXG holds market-cap $1.79B and rank #44; Raydium shows $163.42M and #179. Where liquidity and flow matter, watch Raydium. Where durability matters, watch PAXG. AI composite scores (57.90/57.90) 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, PAXG or Raydium?
“Better” depends on horizon and risk. PAXG leads on market cap today, while PAXG leads the 24h move — neither is a guarantee.
Which has more upside potential, PAXG or RAY?
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 PAXG and Raydium.
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. Raydium 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 PAXG, but longer windows can disagree.