HostLINK vs WLD — price, size and safety, side by side
LINK (Ethereum) vs WLD (Ethereum) — every figure is the freshest dated measurement we hold for that token, never a live-feed guess. Prices stamped 2026-09-27 / 2026-09-27.
LINK vs WLD — normalized performance, 2026-09-27 to 2026-09-27T21:19:38
| LINK | WLD | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $14.02 | $0.5511 |
| Market cap | $9.76B | $2.05B |
| 24h volume | $2.58M | $253.44K |
| Liquidity | $24.03M | $140.93K |
| FDV | $13.05B | $5.51B |
| Holders | 919,439 | 63,635 |
| Age (days) | 1,727 | — |
| Safety grade | A | C |
Where they differ
- LINK measures ~4.8× the market cap of WLD
- LINK measures ~170× the liquidity of WLD
- LINK measures ~10× the 24h volume of WLD
- LINK measures ~14× the holder count of WLD
What the data says
LINK
LINK is Chainlink's token — the asset that pays the oracle network most of DeFi runs on, making it one of the few crypto tokens tied to infrastructure the market actually uses every block. The deployment 0x514910771af9ca656af840dff83e8264ecf986ca is the canonical mint; our September 26, 2026 snapshot reads $24.0 million of tracked pool liquidity on this pair set — a fraction of a float spread across every venue that lists it.
The honest shape: LINK's value thesis is payment for oracle services plus stake in the network's security model, so it carries a real-usage floor most tokens lack — and a valuation that has always run ahead of the fees the network actually collects. It is infrastructure exposure, not a cashflow claim, and the gap between "most-used oracle" and "token captures that usage" is the open question its holders are betting on.
WLD
Before the market numbers, there's a contract detail on WLD to flag. Right now WLD's contract keeps its mint function (2026-09-27 snapshot), so whoever holds it can create new supply at any point. Read the rest of the page with that in mind — it's why WLD is at C (67/100) as of 2026-09-27, with real room to improve.
On the trading data, WLD shows thin liquidity of $140.93K and a holder base of 63,635 as of 2026-09-27. Against a market cap near $2.05B, that $140.93K of liquidity is the real constraint here: a pool this shallow relative to the cap makes slippage, not the contract, the thing to plan around. A 63,635-holder base is a fair start, but distribution matters more than the count — check how much sits in the largest wallets before leaning on it. On concentration, the deployer wallet holds just <0.01% of WLD as of 2026-09-27, so the person who launched it isn't sitting on a dominant share.
FAQ
Which is bigger, LINK or WLD?
By tracked market cap: LINK (Ethereum) measures $9.76B and WLD (Ethereum) measures $2.05B — dated snapshots, not a live feed.
Which is safer, LINK or WLD?
On the contract checks we publish: LINK (Ethereum) grades A and WLD (Ethereum) grades C. A grade is a structural check on the contract, not a promise about the asset.
How have LINK and WLD performed over the shared window?
Between 2026-09-27 and 2026-09-27T21:19:38, the measured snapshots show LINK at 0.00% and WLD at 0.00%.
More comparisons
LINK vs USD1ETH vs LINKSUSDE vs LINKLINK vs AAVEWLD vs BURNIE9QRI vs WLDWLD vs KETWLD vs AMD
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, 2026-09-27→2026-09-27T21:19:38; 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.