Ethereum Name Service (ENS) is tracked by TokenRadar as a NFT, Ethereum Ecosystem, Decentralized Identifier (DID), Name Service asset. The Ethereum Name Service (ENS) is a distributed, open, and extensible naming system based on the Ethereum blockchain. Data snapshot date: May 14, 2026. This overview focuses on market structure, historical reference points, liquidity, and risk context rather than buy or sell recommendations.
| Metric | Value |
|
|
|
| Price | $6.89 |
| Market Cap | $278.35M |
| 24h Change | -3.09% |
| Market Rank | #160 |
| 24h Volume | $23.31M |
| ATH Distance | -91.74% |
Market Position for ENS
Ethereum Name Service trades at $6.89 with a market cap of $278.35M and 24h volume of $23.31M. The latest ranked market snapshot places ENS at #160 by market capitalization. The token is -91.74% from its all-time high of $83.4, recorded on November 11, 2021. Its all-time low is $5.01, recorded on February 6, 2026, while the 30-day move is +17.98%. Circulating supply is 40,408,647.5, total supply is 100,000,000, and max supply is 100,000,000. The volume-to-market-cap ratio is 8.37%, which helps separate active markets from thin markets. A higher ratio usually means recent trading activity is easier to observe, while a very low ratio can make price changes less reliable as a signal.
TokenRadar Risk Context
TokenRadar currently assigns Ethereum Name Service a risk score of 6/10, a growth potential index of 51/100, narrative strength of 30/100, and a volatility index of 22/100. The computed risk level is medium. Ethereum Name Service is a near ATH token.
Risk should be read together with liquidity. Ethereum Name Service has 24h high and low levels of $7.22 and $6.72, so the short-term range is visible before considering broader 7-day and 30-day changes of +3.88% and +17.98%.
Historical Data Points
The historical reference set for ENS includes an all-time high of $83.4 on November 11, 2021, an all-time low of $5.01 on February 6, 2026, and a 1-year move of -71.78%. These figures do not predict the future, but they show whether the current price is near extremes or in a middle range.
Supply and Valuation
Circulating supply is 40,408,647.5, total supply is 100,000,000, and max supply is 100,000,000. Fully diluted valuation is $688.83M. Market cap and FDV can diverge when a large portion of supply is not circulating, so investors should compare circulating supply, total supply, and unlock or emission information before relying on valuation multiples.
What Could Change the Setup
Ethereum Name Service would need stronger evidence across volume, liquidity, development activity, and category momentum for the setup to improve. Weak follow-through, falling volume, large unlocks, contract migrations, or negative security events would weaken the research case even if the spot price rises for a short period.
FAQ
What is Ethereum Name Service?
The Ethereum Name Service (ENS) is a distributed, open, and extensible naming system based on the Ethereum blockchain.
Is ENS a low-risk asset?
No crypto asset should be treated as low risk by default. TokenRadar currently shows a risk score of 6/10, and that score should be checked against volatility, liquidity, supply, and recent events.
What market data matters most for ENS?
The most useful starting points are price, market cap, 24h volume, market rank, ATH distance, circulating supply, and the 30-day trend.
Does this overview recommend buying Ethereum Name Service?
No. It is a structured research summary for comparing data points and risks.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Always do your own research (DYOR).
For ENS research, the important control is consistency between the live market snapshot and the longer historical record. A single 24h move can be noisy, while market cap rank, 30-day performance, all-time high distance, supply structure, and volume-to-cap ratio create a more durable comparison set. This is why the article separates market data from decision rules and keeps the conclusion conditional.
Ethereum Name Service also needs category-aware interpretation. A NFT token with high liquidity can behave very differently from a low-volume asset with the same percentage move. The practical question is whether volume, spread quality, supply data, and catalyst evidence confirm the move or contradict it.
The safest way to use this overview article is as a checklist. Confirm the latest price, check the current rank, compare 24h volume with market cap, review the ATH and ATL dates, and look for any project-specific changes before treating the data as current enough for research.
For ENS research, the important control is consistency between the live market snapshot and the longer historical record. A single 24h move can be noisy, while market cap rank, 30-day performance, all-time high distance, supply structure, and volume-to-cap ratio create a more durable comparison set. This is why the article separates market data from decision rules and keeps the conclusion conditional.
Ethereum Name Service also needs category-aware interpretation. A NFT token with high liquidity can behave very differently from a low-volume asset with the same percentage move. The practical question is whether volume, spread quality, supply data, and catalyst evidence confirm the move or contradict it.
The safest way to use this overview article is as a checklist. Confirm the latest price, check the current rank, compare 24h volume with market cap, review the ATH and ATL dates, and look for any project-specific changes before treating the data as current enough for research.
For ENS research, the important control is consistency between the live market snapshot and the longer historical record. A single 24h move can be noisy, while market cap rank, 30-day performance, all-time high distance, supply structure, and volume-to-cap ratio create a more durable comparison set. This is why the article separates market data from decision rules and keeps the conclusion conditional.
Ethereum Name Service also needs category-aware interpretation. A NFT token with high liquidity can behave very differently from a low-volume asset with the same percentage move. The practical question is whether volume, spread quality, supply data, and catalyst evidence confirm the move or contradict it.
