Overview
From a portfolio lens, SHFL ($122.10M) and WM ($83.05M) offer different beta to bitcoin cycles. The overview below keeps the facts first and the narrative second.
Quick winners
Full comparison
| Metric | SHFL | WM |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $1,880.52 | $1,880.52 |
| Market Cap | $122.10M | $83.05M |
| FDV | — | — |
| Volume 24h | $686,230.00 | $30,272.00 |
| Circulating Supply | — | — |
| Total Supply | — | — |
| Max Supply | — | — |
| Rank | 224.00 | 283.00 |
| Dominance | — | — |
| Liquidity | — | — |
| Volatility | +3.64% | +3.64% |
| ATH | — | — |
| ATL | — | — |
| ROI | — | — |
Performance
| Timeframe | SHFL | WM |
|---|---|---|
| 1H | — | — |
| 24H | -4.00% | +0.00% |
| 7D | — | — |
| 30D | — | — |
| 90D | — | — |
| 1Y | — | — |
| YTD | — | — |
| ALL | — | — |
Comparative chart
Technical indicators
| Indicator | SHFL | WM |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 63.00 | 63.00 |
| Signal | neutral | neutral |
Automatic technical analysis
Technically, SHFL shows RSI 49.02 with trend bias bearish, while WM sits at RSI 49.02 (bearish). Divergences between momentum and price should be confirmed on higher timeframes.
Fundamentals
| Metric | SHFL | WM |
|---|---|---|
| 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
SHFL
WM
Pros and cons
Pros of SHFL
- SHFL typically benefits from deeper liquidity and broader market recognition inside the Top 300 set.
- SHFL often anchors narratives that attract sustained media and analyst coverage.
- Composite PEPS readings for SHFL can surface clearer module agreement during trend phases.
Cons of SHFL
- Indicator stacks on SHFL may stay stretched longer than expected in strong trends.
- Large-cap status for SHFL can mean slower percentage upside versus high-beta alternatives.
- Crowded positioning around SHFL sometimes amplifies squeeze or flush risk.
Pros of WM
- PEPS tracking for WM still includes AI score and level context for monitoring.
- Diversifying versus SHFL with WM can change portfolio factor exposure.
- If technical momentum aligns, WM may outperform on medium-term windows.
Cons of WM
- Relative underperformance versus SHFL can persist through entire market regimes.
- Higher volatility on WM cuts both ways and demands stricter risk limits.
- Trend failures on WM often travel faster than on more established assets.
Which looks stronger right now?
On the latest snapshot, market-cap leadership belongs to SHFL, while short-term performance leans toward WM. That mix suggests relative strength can flip quickly, so size risk accordingly.
AI summary
This AI-assisted summary starts from live PEPS fields. SHFL holds market-cap $122.10M and rank #224; WM shows $83.05M and #283. Where liquidity and flow matter, watch SHFL. Where durability matters, watch SHFL. AI composite scores (58.40/58.40) 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, SHFL or WM?
“Better” depends on horizon and risk. SHFL leads on market cap today, while WM leads the 24h move — neither is a guarantee.
Which has more upside potential, SHFL or WM?
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 SHFL and WM.
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. SHFL 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 WM, but longer windows can disagree.