ACX vs VELA
Across Protocol and Vela Exchange scored on the same 25 variables, ranked against the same 251 tokens, with every gap between them shown.
Scoring pass 18 Sept 2026. Market snapshot 7 Oct 2026.
What separates them
ACX scores 137 of 250 and ranks 37th of 251. VELA scores 107 and ranks 106th. ACX leads by 30 points, which is a wide enough margin that the framework is not ambivalent. ACX takes 21 of the 25 variables, VELA takes 0, and 4 are level.
The framework rates ACX CAUTIOUS HOLD and VELA WATCH. Two tokens close enough to compare do not have to land in the same band, and where they do not, the divergence table below is where the split comes from.
2 variables separate them by 3 points or more. ACX is clear on P/S Multiple (9 against 5) and Buyback and Burn (7 against 4).
Both score 3 or below on Institutional Adoption, Exchange Depth. A weakness both sides share is not a reason to prefer either. It is a reason to check whether the category itself carries the problem.
VELA still has 50% of its eventual supply to enter circulation against 29.5% for ACX. On the same market capitalisation, a buyer of VELA is taking the 2x dilution path and a buyer of ACX the 1.42x one.
All 25 variables, head to head
Both tokens were scored by the same framework in the same pass, so the numbers are directly comparable. What a comparison adds over two separate pages is the gap: a 6 against a 6 is a non-event, a 9 against a 3 is the reason to hold one and not the other.
Cash flow
| Protocol Revenue | 6 | 4 | ACX +2 | |
| Revenue Trend | 7 | 5 | ACX +2 | |
| P/S Multiple | 9 | 5 | ACX +4 | |
| Real Staking Yield | 7 | 5 | ACX +2 |
Supply
| Supply Inflation | 5 | 5 | level | |
| Vesting Schedule | 5 | 5 | level | |
| Circulating / FDV Ratio | 6 | 5 | ACX +1 | |
| Buyback and Burn | 7 | 4 | ACX +3 |
Ownership
| Smart Money Flows | 5 | 4 | ACX +1 | |
| Insider Selling | 6 | 5 | ACX +1 | |
| Holder Concentration | 4 | 4 | level |
Traction
| TVL Trend | 6 | 5 | ACX +1 | |
| Active Users | 5 | 4 | ACX +1 | |
| Developer Activity | 6 | 5 | ACX +1 | |
| Network Growth | 5 | 4 | ACX +1 |
Position
| Market Share | 5 | 3 | ACX +2 | |
| Competitive Moat | 5 | 4 | ACX +1 | |
| Institutional Adoption | 3 | 2 | ACX +1 | |
| Exchange Depth | 3 | 3 | level | |
| Social Mindshare | 4 | 3 | ACX +1 |
Risk
| Regulatory Safety | 6 | 5 | ACX +1 | |
| Catalyst Calendar | 5 | 4 | ACX +1 | |
| BTC Alpha Potential | 5 | 4 | ACX +1 | |
| Team Execution | 6 | 5 | ACX +1 | |
| Treasury Runway | 6 | 5 | ACX +1 |
Bars read outward from the centre: ACX to the left, VELA to the right. The side that leads a variable is filled. Each score is 1 to 10 against the same definition applied to all 251 rated tokens.
Market and supply
| ACX | VELA | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $0.0433 | not published |
| Market cap | $30.5M | not published |
| Circulating | 70.5% | 50% |
| Dilution to full supply | 1.42x | 2x |
| Off all-time high | -97.4% | n/a |
| To recover the high | 38.5x | n/a |
| Total value locked | $180.0M | not published |
| Network | Ethereum | Arbitrum |
Price, market cap and all-time high from the CoinGecko snapshot fetched 7 Oct 2026. Supply shares are derived from circulating and eventual supply counts, which do not move with price. The 25 scores come from the research pass dated 18 Sept 2026.
Catalyst and risk on each side
ACX · CAUTIOUS HOLD
Growing bridge volume, fee buyback mechanism, UMA network integration
Intent-based competition (UniswapX), relayer centralization, low liquidity
VELA · WATCH
Vela Exchange perp DEX on Arbitrum; token buyback and burn mechanism.
Low trading volumes vs. GMX; reliance on Arbitrum network; token dilution.
Common questions
- Is ACX or VELA the better investment?
- On this framework ACX scores higher: 137 against 107 of 250, and it is rated CAUTIOUS HOLD against WATCH. That is a ranking of fundamentals as recorded at the last scoring pass, not a price forecast, and ACX still wins 21 of the 25 individual variables against VELA.
- What is the biggest difference between ACX and VELA?
- P/S Multiple. ACX scores 9 of 10 there and VELA scores 5, a gap of 4 points on a single variable.
Related comparisons
Keep reading
Research and analysis, not investment advice. A higher score is one framework applied consistently to 251 tokens, not a prediction that one asset will outperform the other.