Overview
Whether you arrived from a “QNT vs RAY” query or from PEPS coin pages, this hub aggregates ranks, performance and module-backed signals into one canonical URL.
Quick winners
Full comparison
| Metric | QNT | RAY |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $60.59 | $0.610700 |
| Market Cap | $880.00M | $164.40M |
| FDV | — | — |
| Volume 24h | $755,234.52 | $188,674.63 |
| Circulating Supply | — | — |
| Total Supply | — | — |
| Max Supply | — | — |
| Rank | 72.00 | 179.00 |
| Dominance | — | — |
| Liquidity | — | — |
| Volatility | +3.64% | +3.64% |
| ATH | — | — |
| ATL | — | — |
| ROI | — | — |
Performance
| Timeframe | QNT | RAY |
|---|---|---|
| 1H | — | — |
| 24H | -1.11% | +1.99% |
| 7D | — | — |
| 30D | — | — |
| 90D | — | — |
| 1Y | — | — |
| YTD | — | — |
| ALL | — | — |
Comparative chart
Technical indicators
| Indicator | QNT | RAY |
|---|---|---|
| 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
When RSI and trend disagree across QNT and RAY, expect choppy relative performance until one side reclaims a clear structure.
Fundamentals
| Metric | QNT | RAY |
|---|---|---|
| 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
QNT
RAY
Pros and cons
Pros of QNT
- QNT often anchors narratives that attract sustained media and analyst coverage.
- Market-cap scale on QNT may dampen some idiosyncratic shocks versus smaller peers.
- Higher ranking for QNT can translate into tighter spreads on major venues.
Cons of QNT
- Data gaps in niche fundamentals still apply — absence of a field is not confirmation.
- Regulatory or macro headlines can hit QNT harder simply because it is more visible.
Pros of RAY
- PEPS tracking for RAY still includes AI score and level context for monitoring.
- RAY can offer higher relative beta when market attention rotates toward its niche.
- Narrative optionality around RAY can reprice quickly when catalysts appear.
Cons of RAY
- Higher volatility on RAY cuts both ways and demands stricter risk limits.
- Smaller book depth versus large caps can increase slippage for RAY.
Which looks stronger right now?
The “stronger” label here is descriptive, not predictive. QNT and RAY can alternate leadership as macro liquidity and narrative rotate.
AI summary
For readers asking which is “better”, the honest answer is conditional. QNT and RAY 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 RAY?
“Better” depends on horizon and risk. QNT leads on market cap today, while RAY leads the 24h move — neither is a guarantee.
Which has more upside potential, QNT or RAY?
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 RAY.
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. QNT 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 RAY, but longer windows can disagree.