Overview
Whether you arrived from a “GNO vs MX” query or from PEPS coin pages, this hub aggregates ranks, performance and module-backed signals into one canonical URL.
Quick winners
Full comparison
| Metric | GNO | MX |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $104.16 | $1,867.53 |
| Market Cap | $274.90M | $148.11M |
| FDV | — | — |
| Volume 24h | $99,497.98 | $2.57M |
| Circulating Supply | — | — |
| Total Supply | — | — |
| Max Supply | — | — |
| Rank | 129.00 | 199.00 |
| Dominance | — | — |
| Liquidity | — | — |
| Volatility | +3.64% | +3.64% |
| ATH | — | — |
| ATL | — | — |
| ROI | — | — |
Performance
| Timeframe | GNO | MX |
|---|---|---|
| 1H | — | — |
| 24H | -0.55% | -0.20% |
| 7D | — | — |
| 30D | — | — |
| 90D | — | — |
| 1Y | — | — |
| YTD | — | — |
| ALL | — | — |
Comparative chart
Technical indicators
| Indicator | GNO | MX |
|---|---|---|
| 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
When RSI and trend disagree across GNO and MX, expect choppy relative performance until one side reclaims a clear structure.
Fundamentals
| Metric | GNO | MX |
|---|---|---|
| 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
MX
Pros and cons
Pros of GNO
- GNO typically benefits from deeper liquidity and broader market recognition inside the Top 300 set.
- Market-cap scale on GNO may dampen some idiosyncratic shocks versus smaller peers.
- Higher ranking for GNO can translate into tighter spreads on major venues.
Cons of GNO
- Data gaps in niche fundamentals still apply — absence of a field is not confirmation.
- When dominance narratives fade, GNO can lag hotter rotation names.
- Indicator stacks on GNO may stay stretched longer than expected in strong trends.
Pros of MX
- PEPS tracking for MX still includes AI score and level context for monitoring.
- If technical momentum aligns, MX may outperform on medium-term windows.
- Active volume bursts on MX sometimes precede sharper tactical moves.
- MX can offer higher relative beta when market attention rotates toward its niche.
Cons of MX
- Incomplete fundamental coverage can hide operational or tokenomic risks.
- Smaller book depth versus large caps can increase slippage for MX.
- Relative underperformance versus GNO can persist through entire market regimes.
Which looks stronger right now?
The “stronger” label here is descriptive, not predictive. GNO and MX can alternate leadership as macro liquidity and narrative rotate.
AI summary
This AI-assisted summary starts from live PEPS fields. GNO holds market-cap $274.90M and rank #129; MX shows $148.11M and #199. Where liquidity and flow matter, watch MX. Where durability matters, watch GNO. AI composite scores (57.90/57.90) 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, GNO or MX?
“Better” depends on horizon and risk. GNO leads on market cap today, while MX leads the 24h move — neither is a guarantee.
Which has more upside potential, GNO or MX?
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 MX.
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. MX 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 MX, but longer windows can disagree.