Overview
POL (ex-MATIC) vs GNO is one of the most watched crypto matchups. Beyond headline prices, this comparison blends market structure, technical readings and probabilistic context without promising outcomes.
Quick winners
Full comparison
| Metric | POL | GNO |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $0.073110 | $104.10 |
| Market Cap | $826.65M | $274.35M |
| FDV | — | — |
| Volume 24h | $1.24M | $99,339.69 |
| Circulating Supply | — | — |
| Total Supply | — | — |
| Max Supply | — | — |
| Rank | 77.00 | 129.00 |
| Dominance | — | — |
| Liquidity | — | — |
| Volatility | +3.66% | +3.64% |
| ATH | — | — |
| ATL | — | — |
| ROI | — | — |
Performance
| Timeframe | POL | GNO |
|---|---|---|
| 1H | — | — |
| 24H | +0.21% | -0.98% |
| 7D | — | — |
| 30D | — | — |
| 90D | — | — |
| 1Y | — | — |
| YTD | — | — |
| ALL | — | — |
Comparative chart
Technical indicators
| Indicator | POL | GNO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI | 35.61 | 49.02 |
| MACD histogram | — | — |
| EMA20 | — | — |
| EMA50 | — | — |
| EMA100 | — | — |
| EMA200 | — | — |
| SMA50 | — | — |
| SMA200 | — | — |
| ATR | 0.00 | 67.35 |
| ADX | 24.06 | 21.33 |
| Support | 0.07 | 1,827.82 |
| Resistance | 0.08 | 1,960.30 |
| Trend | bearish | bearish |
| Momentum | — | 67.00 |
| Signal | neutral | neutral |
Automatic technical analysis
Indicator stacks for POL/GNO currently lean on separate regimes: bearish versus bearish. Treat MACD and RSI as context, not as standalone entry triggers.
Fundamentals
| Metric | POL | GNO |
|---|---|---|
| Consensus | — | — |
| Blockchain | — | — |
| TPS | — | — |
| Block time | — | — |
| Finality | — | — |
| Validators | — | — |
| Staking | — | — |
| TVL | — | — |
| Supply model | — | — |
| Inflation | — | — |
| Developer activity | 0.00 | — |
| Github activity | 0.00 | — |
| On-chain activity | — | — |
| Whale activity | — | — |
| Addresses | — | — |
| Gas fees | — | — |
Ecosystem
POL (ex-MATIC)
GNO
Pros and cons
Pros of POL (ex-MATIC)
- Composite PEPS readings for POL (ex-MATIC) can surface clearer module agreement during trend phases.
- POL (ex-MATIC) has an established coin page footprint on PEPS for continuous monitoring.
- POL often anchors narratives that attract sustained media and analyst coverage.
Cons of POL (ex-MATIC)
- Large-cap status for POL (ex-MATIC) can mean slower percentage upside versus high-beta alternatives.
- Regulatory or macro headlines can hit POL (ex-MATIC) harder simply because it is more visible.
- Data gaps in niche fundamentals still apply — absence of a field is not confirmation.
Pros of GNO
- Diversifying versus POL (ex-MATIC) with GNO can change portfolio factor exposure.
- Active volume bursts on GNO sometimes precede sharper tactical moves.
- If technical momentum aligns, GNO may outperform on medium-term windows.
Cons of GNO
- Trend failures on GNO often travel faster than on more established assets.
- Weaker market-cap standing may leave GNO more exposed to liquidity droughts.
- Incomplete fundamental coverage can hide operational or tokenomic risks.
- Smaller book depth versus large caps can increase slippage for GNO.
Which looks stronger right now?
Data currently points to a probabilistic edge for POL (ex-MATIC) on size and POL (ex-MATIC) on activity. Neither reading guarantees future returns.
AI summary
PEPS synthesizes module output into a readable pair brief. Headline stats put POL (ex-MATIC) at $0.073110 and GNO at $104.10. Relative performance over 24h (POL (ex-MATIC)) 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, POL (ex-MATIC) or GNO?
“Better” depends on horizon and risk. POL (ex-MATIC) leads on market cap today, while POL (ex-MATIC) leads the 24h move — neither is a guarantee.
Which has more upside potential, POL 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 POL (ex-MATIC) 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. POL (ex-MATIC) 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 POL (ex-MATIC), but longer windows can disagree.