AR vs SLND
Arweave and Solend 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
AR scores 140 of 250 and ranks 32nd of 251. SLND scores 106 and ranks 110th. AR leads by 34 points, which is a wide enough margin that the framework is not ambivalent. AR takes 21 of the 25 variables, SLND takes 1, and 3 are level.
The framework rates AR HOLD and SLND 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.
4 variables separate them by 3 points or more. AR is clear on Circulating / FDV Ratio (9 against 5), Supply Inflation (8 against 5) and Vesting Schedule (8 against 5).
Both score 3 or below on Buyback and Burn. 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.
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 | 5 | 4 | AR +1 | |
| Revenue Trend | 5 | 4 | AR +1 | |
| P/S Multiple | 5 | 5 | level | |
| Real Staking Yield | 4 | 4 | level |
Supply
| Supply Inflation | 8 | 5 | AR +3 | |
| Vesting Schedule | 8 | 5 | AR +3 | |
| Circulating / FDV Ratio | 9 | 5 | AR +4 | |
| Buyback and Burn | 1 | 2 | SLND +1 |
Ownership
| Smart Money Flows | 6 | 4 | AR +2 | |
| Insider Selling | 6 | 5 | AR +1 | |
| Holder Concentration | 5 | 4 | AR +1 |
Traction
| TVL Trend | 5 | 4 | AR +1 | |
| Active Users | 5 | 4 | AR +1 | |
| Developer Activity | 7 | 5 | AR +2 | |
| Network Growth | 6 | 5 | AR +1 |
Position
| Market Share | 5 | 4 | AR +1 | |
| Competitive Moat | 7 | 4 | AR +3 | |
| Institutional Adoption | 4 | 3 | AR +1 | |
| Exchange Depth | 4 | 3 | AR +1 | |
| Social Mindshare | 5 | 4 | AR +1 |
Risk
| Regulatory Safety | 6 | 5 | AR +1 | |
| Catalyst Calendar | 6 | 4 | AR +2 | |
| BTC Alpha Potential | 4 | 4 | level | |
| Team Execution | 7 | 5 | AR +2 | |
| Treasury Runway | 7 | 5 | AR +2 |
Bars read outward from the centre: AR to the left, SLND 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
| AR | SLND | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $4.19 | $0.1983 |
| Market cap | $274.9M | not published |
| Circulating | 99.5% | n/a |
| Dilution to full supply | 1.01x | n/a |
| Off all-time high | -95.3% | -98.8% |
| To recover the high | 21.3x | 83.3x |
| Total value locked | $65.00B | not published |
| Network | Arweave | Solana |
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
AR · HOLD
AO (Actor Oriented) parallel computing layer turning Arweave into compute network
Storage endowment model relies on AR price assumptions; 83% below ATH; small network
SLND · WATCH
Solana network recovery and lending TVL growth; SLND stakers earn protocol revenue and boosted yields.
Solana network outages and dependency on SOL price; competing lending protocols like Marginfi and Kamino.
Common questions
- Is AR or SLND the better investment?
- On this framework AR scores higher: 140 against 106 of 250, and it is rated HOLD against WATCH. That is a ranking of fundamentals as recorded at the last scoring pass, not a price forecast, and AR still wins 21 of the 25 individual variables against SLND.
- What is the biggest difference between AR and SLND?
- Circulating / FDV Ratio. AR scores 9 of 10 there and SLND 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.