QUICK vs SLND
QuickSwap 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
QUICK scores 105 of 250 and ranks 115th of 251. SLND scores 106 and ranks 110th. SLND leads by 1 points, which is inside the range where the individual variables matter more than the total. QUICK takes 2 of the 25 variables, SLND takes 3, and 20 are level.
No single variable separates QUICK and SLND 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.
Both score 3 or below on Buyback and Burn, Institutional Adoption. 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 | 4 | 4 | level | |
| Revenue Trend | 4 | 4 | level | |
| P/S Multiple | 5 | 5 | level | |
| Real Staking Yield | 4 | 4 | level |
Supply
| Supply Inflation | 5 | 5 | level | |
| Vesting Schedule | 5 | 5 | level | |
| Circulating / FDV Ratio | 5 | 5 | level | |
| Buyback and Burn | 3 | 2 | QUICK +1 |
Ownership
| Smart Money Flows | 3 | 4 | SLND +1 | |
| Insider Selling | 5 | 5 | level | |
| Holder Concentration | 4 | 4 | level |
Traction
| TVL Trend | 4 | 4 | level | |
| Active Users | 4 | 4 | level | |
| Developer Activity | 5 | 5 | level | |
| Network Growth | 4 | 5 | SLND +1 |
Position
| Market Share | 4 | 4 | level | |
| Competitive Moat | 4 | 4 | level | |
| Institutional Adoption | 3 | 3 | level | |
| Exchange Depth | 4 | 3 | QUICK +1 | |
| Social Mindshare | 3 | 4 | SLND +1 |
Risk
| Regulatory Safety | 5 | 5 | level | |
| Catalyst Calendar | 4 | 4 | level | |
| BTC Alpha Potential | 4 | 4 | level | |
| Team Execution | 5 | 5 | level | |
| Treasury Runway | 5 | 5 | level |
Bars read outward from the centre: QUICK 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
| QUICK | SLND | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $0.0107 | $0.1983 |
| Market cap | $7.0M | not published |
| Circulating | 65.6% | n/a |
| Dilution to full supply | 1.52x | n/a |
| Off all-time high | -95.3% | -98.8% |
| To recover the high | 21.3x | 83.3x |
| Total value locked | not published | not published |
| Network | Polygon | 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
QUICK · WATCH
Polygon zkEVM migration and DEX volume growth; QuickSwap's Dragon’s Lair staking boosts yield demand.
Intense DEX competition on Polygon (Uniswap, Balancer); token inflation from staking rewards dilutes holders.
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 QUICK or SLND the better investment?
- On this framework SLND scores higher: 106 against 105 of 250, and it is rated WATCH against WATCH. That is a ranking of fundamentals as recorded at the last scoring pass, not a price forecast, and QUICK still wins 2 of the 25 individual variables against SLND.
- What is the biggest difference between QUICK and SLND?
- 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.