Overview
PEPS ranks this pair inside the Top 300 market-cap universe. That means GNO and IMX are liquid enough for an indexable comparison, with metrics refreshed on the hourly coin pipeline.
Quick winners
Full comparison
| Metric | GNO | IMX |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $104.10 | $0.111100 |
| Market Cap | $274.35M | $222.11M |
| FDV | — | — |
| Volume 24h | $99,339.69 | $352,795.82 |
| Circulating Supply | — | — |
| Total Supply | — | — |
| Max Supply | — | — |
| Rank | 129.00 | 265.00 |
| Dominance | — | — |
| Liquidity | — | — |
| Volatility | +3.64% | +3.64% |
| ATH | — | — |
| ATL | — | — |
| ROI | — | — |
Performance
| Timeframe | GNO | IMX |
|---|---|---|
| 1H | — | — |
| 24H | -0.98% | +1.55% |
| 7D | — | — |
| 30D | — | — |
| 90D | — | — |
| 1Y | — | — |
| YTD | — | — |
| ALL | — | — |
Comparative chart
Technical indicators
| Indicator | GNO | IMX |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GNO/IMX currently lean on separate regimes: bearish versus bearish. Treat MACD and RSI as context, not as standalone entry triggers.
Fundamentals
| Metric | GNO | IMX |
|---|---|---|
| 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
GNO
IMX
Pros and cons
Pros of GNO
- GNO has an established coin page footprint on PEPS for continuous monitoring.
- Higher ranking for GNO can translate into tighter spreads on major venues.
- GNO typically benefits from deeper liquidity and broader market recognition inside the Top 300 set.
Cons of GNO
- When dominance narratives fade, GNO can lag hotter rotation names.
- Large-cap status for GNO can mean slower percentage upside versus high-beta alternatives.
- Indicator stacks on GNO may stay stretched longer than expected in strong trends.
Pros of IMX
- Diversifying versus GNO with IMX can change portfolio factor exposure.
- Active volume bursts on IMX sometimes precede sharper tactical moves.
- IMX can offer higher relative beta when market attention rotates toward its niche.
- Narrative optionality around IMX can reprice quickly when catalysts appear.
Cons of IMX
- Trend failures on IMX often travel faster than on more established assets.
- Weaker market-cap standing may leave IMX more exposed to liquidity droughts.
- Incomplete fundamental coverage can hide operational or tokenomic risks.
Which looks stronger right now?
Data currently points to a probabilistic edge for GNO on size and IMX on activity. Neither reading guarantees future returns.
AI summary
For readers asking which is “better”, the honest answer is conditional. GNO and IMX solve overlapping but not identical market jobs. On-chain and developer fields, when available, add slower-moving context beneath the tape. Missing fundamentals should be treated as unknown, not as zeros. If your thesis is long-term adoption, weight fundamentals and liquidity; if tactical, weight trend/momentum — and always define invalidation.
FAQ
Which is better, GNO or IMX?
“Better” depends on horizon and risk. GNO leads on market cap today, while IMX leads the 24h move — neither is a guarantee.
Which has more upside potential, GNO or IMX?
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 GNO and IMX.
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. IMX 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 IMX, but longer windows can disagree.