HostZC vs GNO — price, size and safety, side by side
ZC (Ethereum) vs GNO (Gnosis) — every figure is the freshest dated measurement we hold for that token, never a live-feed guess. Prices stamped 2026-10-16 / 2026-10-17.
ZC vs GNO — normalized performance, 2026-10-11 to 2026-10-16T21:15:32
| ZC | GNO | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $0.002615 | $114.84 |
| Market cap | $17.94M | $305.06M |
| 24h volume | $4.04M DEX | $130.50K DEX |
| Liquidity | $326.97K | $2.54M |
| FDV | $18.08M | $166.99M |
| Holders | 5,596 | 38,619 |
| Age (days) | 6 | 151 |
| Safety grade | A | B |
Where they differ
- GNO measures ~17× the market cap of ZC
- GNO measures ~7.8× the liquidity of ZC
- ZC measures ~31× the 24h volume of GNO
- GNO measures ~6.9× the holder count of ZC
- over the shared window ZC moved −71.8% while GNO moved −0.67%
What the data says
ZC
There's a lot to like about how ZC's contract is set up. Nobody can print fresh supply, which keeps every holder's share intact, and the contract can't pause or block transfers, leaving you free to trade on your own terms. Neither lever existing is the main reason ZC's 90/100 comes down to market factors, not contract ones (2026-10-09).
By the numbers, ZC is showing workable liquidity of $326.97K, 5,596 holders and a brand-new record at 6 days as of 2026-10-09. Against a market cap of about $17.94M, the $326.97K pool is workable rather than deep — fine for ordinary size to move in and out, though a larger position would start to feel the pool's edges. The 5,596-wallet base is a reasonable spread of ownership, though a headline count doesn't show whether a few wallets dominate — the concentration read on this page speaks to that. On concentration, the deployer wallet holds just 0.73% of ZC as of 2026-10-09, so the person who launched it isn't sitting on a dominant share.
GNO
One detail on GNO didn't fully resolve in the 2026-10-09 snapshot: its contract controls. So it's best treated as unconfirmed rather than assumed clean, and a quick live scan will confirm the current state for you.
Looking at the market data, GNO shows a $2.54M pool, 38,619 wallets holding and a maturing record at 151 days as of 2026-10-09. Weigh the $2.54M pool against a ~$305.06M cap and one thing stands out — it's a slim pool for the size, so GNO's price is easier to move than its market cap implies, and large size should scale in and out patiently. 38,619 holders is a decent base; just remember the number alone doesn't reveal how much the top wallets control, so weigh it with the concentration figure. The creator's own position is small — <0.01% of supply as of 2026-10-09, comfortably under the 5% line the scanners flag — which is what you want to see.
FAQ
Which is bigger, ZC or GNO?
By tracked market cap: ZC (Ethereum) measures $17.94M and GNO (Gnosis) measures $305.06M — dated snapshots, not a live feed.
Which is safer, ZC or GNO?
On the contract checks we publish: ZC (Ethereum) grades A and GNO (Gnosis) grades B. A grade is a structural check on the contract, not a promise about the asset.
How have ZC and GNO performed over the shared window?
Between 2026-10-11 and 2026-10-16T21:15:32, the measured snapshots show ZC at −71.8% and GNO at −0.67%.
The grade column is the one CMC's compare page cannot print — our grade is computed from the contract itself (mint/freeze authority, liquidity, holder concentration). Changes are measured over the shared window stated on the chart, 2026-10-11→2026-10-16T21:15:32; a token with fewer measured points measures a shorter span inside it.
Figures are dated on-chain snapshots, not a live feed. Safety grades are structural checks — not investment advice. Free · no signup · a HostDeFi product.