Overview
From a portfolio lens, Uniswap ($2.43B) and GNO ($274.67M) offer different beta to bitcoin cycles. The overview below keeps the facts first and the narrative second.
Quick winners
Full comparison
| Metric | UNI | GNO |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $4.21 | $104.04 |
| Market Cap | $2.43B | $274.67M |
| FDV | — | — |
| Volume 24h | $12.74M | $99,194.36 |
| Circulating Supply | — | — |
| Total Supply | — | — |
| Max Supply | — | — |
| Rank | 36.00 | 129.00 |
| Dominance | — | — |
| Liquidity | — | — |
| Volatility | +6.35% | +3.64% |
| ATH | — | — |
| ATL | — | — |
| ROI | — | — |
Performance
| Timeframe | UNI | GNO |
|---|---|---|
| 1H | — | — |
| 24H | +2.71% | -0.90% |
| 7D | — | — |
| 30D | — | — |
| 90D | — | — |
| 1Y | — | — |
| YTD | — | — |
| ALL | — | — |
Comparative chart
Technical indicators
| Indicator | UNI | GNO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI | 60.59 | 49.02 |
| MACD histogram | — | — |
| EMA20 | — | — |
| EMA50 | — | — |
| EMA100 | — | — |
| EMA200 | — | — |
| SMA50 | — | — |
| SMA200 | — | — |
| ATR | 0.26 | 67.35 |
| ADX | 41.11 | 21.33 |
| Support | 3.53 | 1,827.82 |
| Resistance | 5.75 | 1,960.30 |
| Trend | bearish | bearish |
| Momentum | — | 67.00 |
| Signal | neutral | neutral |
Automatic technical analysis
Technically, Uniswap shows RSI 60.59 with trend bias bearish, while GNO sits at RSI 49.02 (bearish). Divergences between momentum and price should be confirmed on higher timeframes.
Fundamentals
| Metric | UNI | GNO |
|---|---|---|
| Consensus | — | — |
| Blockchain | — | — |
| TPS | — | — |
| Block time | — | — |
| Finality | — | — |
| Validators | — | — |
| Staking | — | — |
| TVL | — | — |
| Supply model | — | — |
| Inflation | — | — |
| Developer activity | 0.00 | — |
| Github activity | 5,019.00 | — |
| On-chain activity | — | — |
| Whale activity | — | — |
| Addresses | — | — |
| Gas fees | — | — |
Ecosystem
Uniswap
GNO
Pros and cons
Pros of Uniswap
- Uniswap typically benefits from deeper liquidity and broader market recognition inside the Top 300 set.
- Market-cap scale on Uniswap may dampen some idiosyncratic shocks versus smaller peers.
- Uniswap has an established coin page footprint on PEPS for continuous monitoring.
Cons of Uniswap
- Crowded positioning around UNI sometimes amplifies squeeze or flush risk.
- Indicator stacks on Uniswap may stay stretched longer than expected in strong trends.
- Large-cap status for Uniswap can mean slower percentage upside versus high-beta alternatives.
Pros of GNO
- If technical momentum aligns, GNO may outperform on medium-term windows.
- PEPS tracking for GNO still includes AI score and level context for monitoring.
- Active volume bursts on GNO sometimes precede sharper tactical moves.
Cons of GNO
- Incomplete fundamental coverage can hide operational or tokenomic risks.
- Trend failures on GNO often travel faster than on more established assets.
Which looks stronger right now?
On the latest snapshot, market-cap leadership belongs to Uniswap, while short-term performance leans toward Uniswap. That mix suggests relative strength can flip quickly, so size risk accordingly.
AI summary
This AI-assisted summary starts from live PEPS fields. Uniswap holds market-cap $2.43B and rank #36; GNO shows $274.67M and #129. Where liquidity and flow matter, watch Uniswap. Where durability matters, watch Uniswap. AI composite scores (46.20/57.90) 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, Uniswap or GNO?
“Better” depends on horizon and risk. Uniswap leads on market cap today, while Uniswap leads the 24h move — neither is a guarantee.
Which has more upside potential, UNI 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 Uniswap 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. Uniswap 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 Uniswap, but longer windows can disagree.