HostWLD vs UNI — price, size and safety, side by side
WLD (Ethereum) vs UNI (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.
WLD vs UNI — normalized performance, 2026-09-27 to 2026-09-27T21:19:38
| WLD | UNI | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $0.5511 | $9.76 |
| Market cap | $2.05B | $5.60B |
| 24h volume | $253.44K | $5.14M |
| Liquidity | $140.93K | $25.55M |
| FDV | $5.51B | $8.01B |
| Holders | 63,635 | 382,165 |
| Age (days) | — | 1,727 |
| Safety grade | C | A |
Where they differ
- UNI measures ~2.7× the market cap of WLD
- UNI measures ~181× the liquidity of WLD
- UNI measures ~20× the 24h volume of WLD
- UNI measures ~6.0× the holder count of WLD
What the data says
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.
UNI
UNI is Uniswap's governance token — the asset of the protocol that invented the automated market maker and still clears more DEX volume than the rest of the field combined. The deployment 0x1f9840a85d5af5bf1d1762f925bdaddc4201f984 is the canonical mint; our September 26, 2026 snapshot reads $25.5 million of tracked pool liquidity on this pair set.
The honest asymmetry is the governance-token shape: UNI's thesis is control over a fee-generating machine, but the "fee switch" — the mechanism that would route protocol revenue to holders — has been proposed and deferred for years, so the token trades on governance value and the perennial expectation rather than cashflow it actually pays. That makes its valuation more reflexive than a productive asset's.
FAQ
Which is bigger, WLD or UNI?
By tracked market cap: WLD (Ethereum) measures $2.05B and UNI (Ethereum) measures $5.60B — dated snapshots, not a live feed.
Which is safer, WLD or UNI?
On the contract checks we publish: WLD (Ethereum) grades C and UNI (Ethereum) grades A. A grade is a structural check on the contract, not a promise about the asset.
How have WLD and UNI performed over the shared window?
Between 2026-09-27 and 2026-09-27T21:19:38, the measured snapshots show WLD at 0.00% and UNI at 0.00%.
More comparisons
WLD vs BURNIE9QRI vs WLDWLD vs KETWLD vs AMDUNI vs FRXUSDGHO vs UNIUSD1 vs UNIUNI vs SUSDE
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.