GT vs LEO
GateToken and UNUS SED LEO 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
GT scores 123 of 250 and ranks 56th of 251. LEO scores 126 and ranks 53rd. LEO leads by 3 points, which is inside the range where the individual variables matter more than the total. GT takes 6 of the 25 variables, LEO takes 8, and 11 are level.
No single variable separates GT and LEO by as much as 3 points. They are close on the framework's terms, which makes price, liquidity and the supply position below the only grounds for choosing.
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 | 6 | LEO +1 | |
| Revenue Trend | 5 | 5 | level | |
| P/S Multiple | 5 | 5 | level | |
| Real Staking Yield | 4 | 3 | GT +1 |
Supply
| Supply Inflation | 7 | 8 | LEO +1 | |
| Vesting Schedule | 7 | 8 | LEO +1 | |
| Circulating / FDV Ratio | 7 | 9 | LEO +2 | |
| Buyback and Burn | 7 | 8 | LEO +1 |
Ownership
| Smart Money Flows | 4 | 4 | level | |
| Insider Selling | 5 | 6 | LEO +1 | |
| Holder Concentration | 4 | 3 | GT +1 |
Traction
| TVL Trend | 4 | 4 | level | |
| Active Users | 5 | 5 | level | |
| Developer Activity | 4 | 4 | level | |
| Network Growth | 4 | 3 | GT +1 |
Position
| Market Share | 4 | 5 | LEO +1 | |
| Competitive Moat | 5 | 5 | level | |
| Institutional Adoption | 4 | 4 | level | |
| Exchange Depth | 5 | 4 | GT +1 | |
| Social Mindshare | 4 | 3 | GT +1 |
Risk
| Regulatory Safety | 4 | 4 | level | |
| Catalyst Calendar | 4 | 3 | GT +1 | |
| BTC Alpha Potential | 5 | 5 | level | |
| Team Execution | 5 | 5 | level | |
| Treasury Runway | 6 | 7 | LEO +1 |
Bars read outward from the centre: GT to the left, LEO 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
| GT | LEO | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | not published | $8.90 |
| Market cap | not published | $8.19B |
| Circulating | 87.8% | 93.4% |
| Dilution to full supply | 1.14x | 1.07x |
| Off all-time high | n/a | -16.2% |
| To recover the high | n/a | 1.2x |
| Total value locked | not published | not published |
| Network | Ethereum | Ethereum |
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
GT · CAUTIOUS HOLD
Gate.io's GT staking for Startup token allocations, with 12% APY and 50% of fees burned quarterly.
Gate.io's withdrawal of Chinese OTC services due to PBOC crackdown, reducing trading volume 40%.
LEO · CAUTIOUS HOLD
Continuous LEO token buyback and burn funded by at least 27% of iFinex consolidated gross revenue, accelerating token burn from Q3 2025.
DOJ indictment of Bitfinex/Tether executives for bank fraud or sanctions violations.
Common questions
- Is GT or LEO the better investment?
- On this framework LEO scores higher: 126 against 123 of 250, and it is rated CAUTIOUS HOLD against CAUTIOUS HOLD. That is a ranking of fundamentals as recorded at the last scoring pass, not a price forecast, and GT still wins 6 of the 25 individual variables against LEO.
- What is the biggest difference between GT and LEO?
- Nothing separates them by more than 2 points on any of the 25 variables, which is unusual and means the two are close substitutes on fundamentals.
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.