Overview
PEPS ranks this pair inside the Top 300 market-cap universe. That means QNT and Cosmos Hub are liquid enough for an indexable comparison, with metrics refreshed on the hourly coin pipeline.
Quick winners
Full comparison
| Metric | QNT | ATOM |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $60.34 | $1.26 |
| Market Cap | $877.64M | $723.29M |
| FDV | — | — |
| Volume 24h | $755,748.40 | $1.55M |
| Circulating Supply | — | — |
| Total Supply | — | — |
| Max Supply | — | — |
| Rank | 72.00 | 85.00 |
| Dominance | — | — |
| Liquidity | — | — |
| Volatility | +3.64% | +4.22% |
| ATH | — | — |
| ATL | — | — |
| ROI | — | — |
Performance
| Timeframe | QNT | ATOM |
|---|---|---|
| 1H | — | — |
| 24H | -1.93% | +2.77% |
| 7D | — | — |
| 30D | — | — |
| 90D | — | — |
| 1Y | — | — |
| YTD | — | — |
| ALL | — | — |
Comparative chart
Technical indicators
| Indicator | QNT | ATOM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI | 49.02 | 18.97 |
| MACD histogram | — | — |
| EMA20 | — | — |
| EMA50 | — | — |
| EMA100 | — | — |
| EMA200 | — | — |
| SMA50 | — | — |
| SMA200 | — | — |
| ATR | 67.35 | 0.05 |
| ADX | 21.33 | 51.19 |
| Support | 1,827.82 | — |
| Resistance | 1,960.30 | 1.61 |
| Trend | bearish | bearish |
| Momentum | 65.00 | — |
| Signal | neutral | neutral |
Automatic technical analysis
Use the indicator table as a checklist: if momentum and trend align on one asset while the other diverges, relative-value setups become more interesting — still without certainty.
Fundamentals
| Metric | QNT | ATOM |
|---|---|---|
| Consensus | — | — |
| Blockchain | — | — |
| TPS | — | — |
| Block time | — | — |
| Finality | — | — |
| Validators | — | — |
| Staking | — | — |
| TVL | — | — |
| Supply model | — | — |
| Inflation | — | — |
| Developer activity | — | 0.00 |
| Github activity | — | 1,299.00 |
| On-chain activity | — | — |
| Whale activity | — | — |
| Addresses | — | — |
| Gas fees | — | — |
Ecosystem
QNT
Cosmos Hub
Pros and cons
Pros of QNT
- QNT typically benefits from deeper liquidity and broader market recognition inside the Top 300 set.
- Market-cap scale on QNT may dampen some idiosyncratic shocks versus smaller peers.
- QNT has an established coin page footprint on PEPS for continuous monitoring.
Cons of QNT
- Data gaps in niche fundamentals still apply — absence of a field is not confirmation.
- Crowded positioning around QNT sometimes amplifies squeeze or flush risk.
- Large-cap status for QNT can mean slower percentage upside versus high-beta alternatives.
Pros of Cosmos Hub
- PEPS tracking for Cosmos Hub still includes AI score and level context for monitoring.
- Active volume bursts on ATOM sometimes precede sharper tactical moves.
Cons of Cosmos Hub
- Higher volatility on ATOM cuts both ways and demands stricter risk limits.
- Incomplete fundamental coverage can hide operational or tokenomic risks.
- Weaker market-cap standing may leave Cosmos Hub more exposed to liquidity droughts.
Which looks stronger right now?
Statistically, higher market cap (QNT) often correlates with deeper books, while hotter 24h prints (Cosmos Hub) can fade. Position sizing should reflect that uncertainty.
AI summary
For readers asking which is “better”, the honest answer is conditional. QNT and Cosmos Hub 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, QNT or Cosmos Hub?
“Better” depends on horizon and risk. QNT leads on market cap today, while Cosmos Hub leads the 24h move — neither is a guarantee.
Which has more upside potential, QNT or ATOM?
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 QNT and Cosmos Hub.
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. Cosmos Hub 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 Cosmos Hub, but longer windows can disagree.