NexZAMA vs ERC20 — price, size and safety, side by side
ZAMA (BNB Chain) vs ERC20 (BNB Chain) — every figure is the freshest dated measurement we hold for that token, never a live-feed guess. Prices stamped 2026-11-11 / 2026-11-10.
ZAMA vs ERC20 — normalized performance, 2026-09-21 to 2026-11-10T21:13:10
| ZAMA | ERC20 | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $0.06587 | $0.000000000000 |
| Market cap | $180.16M | $592 |
| 24h volume | $10.54M all venues | $3.95 DEX |
| Liquidity | $346.11K | $334.02K |
| FDV | $16.71M | $756.18 |
| Holders | 3,540 | 8,688 |
| Age (days) | 234 | 213 |
| Safety grade | A | B |
Where they differ
- ZAMA measures ~304,321× the market cap of ERC20
- ZAMA measures ~2,667,167× the 24h volume of ERC20
- ERC20 measures ~2.5× the holder count of ZAMA
- over the shared window ZAMA moved −33.9% while ERC20 moved −100.0%
What the data says
ZAMA
ZAMA at 0x6907a5986c4950bdaf2f81828ec0737ce787519f is a 234-day-old BNB Chain book priced at a $180.2 million asset-wide market cap against a $16.7 million fully-diluted figure priced on 230.5 million local units at the November 6, 2026 snapshot.
The local book is thin for the headline and the tape is the busiest in this set: $346.1 thousand of tracked depth on $7.0 million of 24-hour volume — routed flow cycling the pool more than twenty times daily. Contract-level controls were not assessed in this snapshot.
ERC20
ERC20 — a token literally named "ERC20" on BNB Chain at 0x58730ae0faa10d73b0cddb5e7b87c3594f7a20cb — carries the most extreme valuation split in this batch: a market cap of $592 against a fully diluted figure of $756.2 on the November 4, 2026 snapshot.
A $13.4B FDV over a $592 cap means the float is a rounding error — supply overwhelmingly sits outside circulation, so the circulating price says almost nothing about the token's headline value. The contract can mint on top of that, the top ten wallets hold about 76.3%, and even so 8,688 wallets hold positions — with $334.0 thousand of tracked depth, more book than the cap itself.
FAQ
Which is bigger, ZAMA or ERC20?
By tracked market cap: ZAMA (BNB Chain) measures $180.16M and ERC20 (BNB Chain) measures $592 — dated snapshots, not a live feed.
Which is safer, ZAMA or ERC20?
On the contract checks we publish: ZAMA (BNB Chain) grades A and ERC20 (BNB Chain) grades B. A grade is a structural check on the contract, not a promise about the asset.
How have ZAMA and ERC20 performed over the shared window?
Between 2026-09-21 and 2026-11-10T21:13:10, the measured snapshots show ZAMA at −33.9% and ERC20 at −100.0%.
More comparisons
ZAMA vs CRVZAMA vs GOHOMEZAMA vs VIRTUALMON vs ZAMAERC20 vs GOHOMECRV vs ERC20ERC20 vs VIRTUALMON vs ERC20
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, 2026-09-21→2026-11-10T21:13:10; 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 NexFlow product.