TRON Surpasses Ethereum in Monthly Layer 1 Revenue

TRON booked $23.85 million in monthly revenue, nearly four times Ethereum’s $6.04 million, according to figures Whale Factor shared on X. The result places TRON ahead of nine other competing networks in Layer 1 revenue. Annualized revenue multiples vary sharply: MON trades at 58x, TRX at 108x, ETH at nearly 3,900x and BNB at more than 5,300x. Base-layer figures exclude some application earnings, so reported chain revenue does not capture every network’s wider economic activity. The valuation gap may prompt investors to question how blockchain activity is priced. TRON ($TRX) tops the monthly revenue rankings at $23.85 million. Ethereum (ETH) follows at $6.04 million, while Solana (SOL) records $3.32 million. BNB comes next at $1.49 million, leaving a wide gap behind the leading networks. TRON generated nearly 3.9 times Ethereum’s reported chain revenue during the measured month. Its lead over Ethereum amounts to $17.81 million. The comparison measures reported revenue, not the full value of each ecosystem. The remaining networks report smaller monthly totals. Hyperliquid ($HYPE) records $520,900, followed by Avalanche ($AVAX) at $451,100. Monad ($MON), Injective ($INJ), Internet Computer ($ICP) and NEAR complete the list. TRX traded near $0.3301 on October 26, 2026, according to MetaMask market data. That price provides market context but does not explain the network’s revenue lead. Revenue and token price measure different aspects of a blockchain’s market position. Whale Factor also compares token valuations with annualized chain revenue. TRX carries a multiple of 108 times, while MON stands at 58 times. Ethereum’s multiple approaches 3,900 times, and BNB is above 5,300 times. These figures show a stark contrast between reported revenue and market value. Higher multiples can reflect expectations that activity will increase. A lower multiple alone does not prove an asset is undervalued. MON’s lower multiple may draw attention from investors comparing network valuations, but revenue trends, token supply and future demand also affect the assessment. Ethereum’s multiple may reflect expectations beyond the revenue captured in this comparison. The figures alone cannot confirm whether those expectations will be met. Whale Factor cautions that base-layer revenue excludes earnings generated by some applications. Hyperliquid’s perpetual futures business runs on top of its underlying chain, so the reported $520,900 does not capture all revenue produced by that application. The distinction matters when comparing networks with different economic structures. Some activity generates fees at the base layer, while applications collect revenue separately. A chain-only comparison can miss earnings created elsewhere in the ecosystem. The figures also provide only a monthly snapshot. Revenue can change as transaction demand, fees and market conditions shift. Multiplying one month’s total by twelve may distort valuations if activity changes. The ranking does not show whether revenue remains steady across several months, nor does network revenue automatically translate into income for token holders. Those questions require separate evidence. TRON leads the listed networks on monthly revenue, while MON has the lowest stated multiple. Neither figure settles which token offers better value. Investors would need consistent revenue records, token valuation data and evidence of future demand before drawing that conclusion.