Overview
WLD vs GHO 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 | WLD | GHO |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $0.314800 | $1,882.43 |
| Market Cap | $1.13B | $648.04M |
| FDV | — | — |
| Volume 24h | $9.95M | $1.39M |
| Circulating Supply | — | — |
| Total Supply | — | — |
| Max Supply | — | — |
| Rank | 61.00 | 87.00 |
| Dominance | — | — |
| Liquidity | — | — |
| Volatility | +3.64% | +3.64% |
| ATH | — | — |
| ATL | — | — |
| ROI | — | — |
Performance
| Timeframe | WLD | GHO |
|---|---|---|
| 1H | — | — |
| 24H | +4.13% | +0.00% |
| 7D | — | — |
| 30D | — | — |
| 90D | — | — |
| 1Y | — | — |
| YTD | — | — |
| ALL | — | — |
Comparative chart
Technical indicators
| Indicator | WLD | GHO |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 59.00 | 59.00 |
| Signal | neutral | neutral |
Automatic technical analysis
Indicator stacks for WLD/GHO currently lean on separate regimes: bearish versus bearish. Treat MACD and RSI as context, not as standalone entry triggers.
Fundamentals
| Metric | WLD | GHO |
|---|---|---|
| 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
WLD
GHO
Pros and cons
Pros of WLD
- Composite PEPS readings for WLD can surface clearer module agreement during trend phases.
- WLD has an established coin page footprint on PEPS for continuous monitoring.
- Market-cap scale on WLD may dampen some idiosyncratic shocks versus smaller peers.
Cons of WLD
- When dominance narratives fade, WLD can lag hotter rotation names.
- Regulatory or macro headlines can hit WLD harder simply because it is more visible.
- Data gaps in niche fundamentals still apply — absence of a field is not confirmation.
- Large-cap status for WLD can mean slower percentage upside versus high-beta alternatives.
Pros of GHO
- Active volume bursts on GHO sometimes precede sharper tactical moves.
- GHO can offer higher relative beta when market attention rotates toward its niche.
- Diversifying versus WLD with GHO can change portfolio factor exposure.
Cons of GHO
- Smaller book depth versus large caps can increase slippage for GHO.
- Higher volatility on GHO cuts both ways and demands stricter risk limits.
- Weaker market-cap standing may leave GHO more exposed to liquidity droughts.
Which looks stronger right now?
Data currently points to a probabilistic edge for WLD on size and WLD on activity. Neither reading guarantees future returns.
AI summary
This AI-assisted summary starts from live PEPS fields. WLD holds market-cap $1.13B and rank #61; GHO shows $648.04M and #87. Where liquidity and flow matter, watch WLD. Where durability matters, watch WLD. AI composite scores (58.20/58.20) 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, WLD or GHO?
“Better” depends on horizon and risk. WLD leads on market cap today, while WLD leads the 24h move — neither is a guarantee.
Which has more upside potential, WLD or GHO?
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 WLD and GHO.
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. WLD 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 WLD, but longer windows can disagree.