TRON recorded $23.85 million in monthly revenue, nearly four times Ethereum's $6.04 million, according to figures shared by Whale Factor on X.

The same dataset shows a wide spread in annualized revenue multiples across major networks: MON trades at 58 times annualized revenue, TRX at 108 times, ETH at nearly 3,900 times, and BNB at more than 5,300 times. Because base-layer figures exclude earnings generated by some applications, reported chain revenue cannot capture the full economic activity of every network. The Layer 1 revenue ranking places TRON ahead of nine other competing networks, and large valuation disparities are set to prompt some investors to question how blockchain activity should be valued. Revenue has also become a recurring yardstick in crypto market commentary because it ties a network's valuation to the fees its chain actually collects, rather than to price alone.

TRON Leads the Monthly Revenue Rankings

Whale Factor's market comparison puts TRON ($TRX) at the top with $23.85 million in monthly revenue. Chain revenue in comparisons like this generally reflects the fees a base blockchain collects from on-chain activity, so the figures track what users and applications pay to settle transactions on each network during the measured period. 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.

Based on the figures provided, TRON generated nearly 3.9 times Ethereum's reported chain revenue during the measured month, a lead of $17.81 million. The comparison, however, measures reported revenue rather than the full value of each ecosystem.

The remaining networks report smaller monthly totals in Whale Factor's figures. Hyperliquid ($HYPE) records $520,900, followed by Avalanche (AVAX) at $451,100. Monad (MON), Injective (INJ), Internet Computer (ICP) and NEAR complete the list.

Fee levels, transaction counts and network design all shape what a chain collects, so the ranking reflects usage and pricing together rather than a single measure of activity. TRX traded near $0.3301 on October 26, 2026, according to MetaMask's market data. That price provides market context but does not explain the network's revenue lead, as revenue and token price measure different aspects of a blockchain's market position.

Valuation Multiples Show a Wide Divide

Whale Factor also compares token valuations against 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's exceeds 5,300 times — stark contrasts between reported revenue and market value.

These multiples function much like the price-to-sales ratios used for public companies: they show how much the market currently prices each dollar of a network's annualized chain revenue. Because both market value and revenue move over time, the figures describe the moment the data was compiled rather than a fixed relationship.

Higher multiples can indicate that investors expect activity to increase in the future. However, a lower multiple alone does not prove that an asset is undervalued.

MON's lower multiple may draw attention from investors comparing network valuations, but a lower valuation is not enough on its own. Revenue trends, token supply and future demand also affect that assessment.

Ethereum's multiple presents a different picture from TRON's reported revenue lead. Its valuation may reflect expectations beyond the revenue captured in this comparison, and the figures alone cannot confirm whether those expectations will be met.

Application Earnings Leave Part of the Picture Out

The post 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.

This distinction matters when comparing networks with different economic structures. Some activity generates fees at the base layer, while applications collect revenue separately, meaning a chain-only comparison can miss earnings created elsewhere in an ecosystem.

The figures also provide only a monthly snapshot of network activity. Revenue can change as transaction demand, fees and market conditions shift, and multiplying one month's total by twelve may distort valuations if activity moves.

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 beyond the supplied comparison. Updated datasets that span multiple months or include application-level earnings would address those gaps directly; until then, this comparison stands as a one-month, base-layer view.

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.