Overview
From a portfolio lens, GNO ($274.90M) and PEANUT ($184.54M) offer different beta to bitcoin cycles. The overview below keeps the facts first and the narrative second.
Quick winners
Full comparison
| Metric | GNO | PEANUT |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $104.16 | $1,867.53 |
| Market Cap | $274.90M | $184.54M |
| FDV | — | — |
| Volume 24h | $99,497.98 | $2.36 |
| Circulating Supply | — | — |
| Total Supply | — | — |
| Max Supply | — | — |
| Rank | 129.00 | 147.00 |
| Dominance | — | — |
| Liquidity | — | — |
| Volatility | +3.64% | +3.64% |
| ATH | — | — |
| ATL | — | — |
| ROI | — | — |
Performance
| Timeframe | GNO | PEANUT |
|---|---|---|
| 1H | — | — |
| 24H | -0.55% | -14.90% |
| 7D | — | — |
| 30D | — | — |
| 90D | — | — |
| 1Y | — | — |
| YTD | — | — |
| ALL | — | — |
Comparative chart
Technical indicators
| Indicator | GNO | PEANUT |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 65.00 | 65.00 |
| Signal | neutral | neutral |
Automatic technical analysis
Technically, GNO shows RSI 49.02 with trend bias bearish, while PEANUT sits at RSI 49.02 (bearish). Divergences between momentum and price should be confirmed on higher timeframes.
Fundamentals
| Metric | GNO | PEANUT |
|---|---|---|
| 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
PEANUT
Pros and cons
Pros of GNO
- Market-cap scale on GNO may dampen some idiosyncratic shocks versus smaller peers.
- GNO often anchors narratives that attract sustained media and analyst coverage.
- GNO has an established coin page footprint on PEPS for continuous monitoring.
- GNO typically benefits from deeper liquidity and broader market recognition inside the Top 300 set.
Cons of GNO
- Crowded positioning around GNO sometimes amplifies squeeze or flush risk.
- When dominance narratives fade, GNO can lag hotter rotation names.
Pros of PEANUT
- If technical momentum aligns, PEANUT may outperform on medium-term windows.
- PEPS tracking for PEANUT still includes AI score and level context for monitoring.
- Active volume bursts on PEANUT sometimes precede sharper tactical moves.
Cons of PEANUT
- Incomplete fundamental coverage can hide operational or tokenomic risks.
- Higher volatility on PEANUT cuts both ways and demands stricter risk limits.
- Smaller book depth versus large caps can increase slippage for PEANUT.
Which looks stronger right now?
On the latest snapshot, market-cap leadership belongs to GNO, while short-term performance leans toward GNO. That mix suggests relative strength can flip quickly, so size risk accordingly.
AI summary
Comparing GNO and PEANUT begins with structure: capitalization, volume and rank. Present prints are $104.16 versus $1,867.53. Momentum and trend can disagree with market-cap hierarchy. That is normal in crypto rotations and should be stress-tested against supports and news flow. Canonical URLs prevent duplicate PEANUT-vs-GNO pages, keeping SEO equity on one comparison. Keep monitoring winners as data updates.
FAQ
Which is better, GNO or PEANUT?
“Better” depends on horizon and risk. GNO leads on market cap today, while GNO leads the 24h move — neither is a guarantee.
Which has more upside potential, GNO or PEANUT?
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 PEANUT.
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. GNO 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 GNO, but longer windows can disagree.