United Stables vs A7A5 โ side-by-side comparison of supply, chains, backing, and peg data.
Peg history unavailable.
Over the last 30 days U supply moved +19.9% and A7A5 +18.8% โ U grew faster.
| Metric | U | A7A5 |
|---|---|---|
| USD circulation value | $1.53B | $544.7M |
| Rank (by USD value) | #15 | #19 |
| Peg | USD | RUB |
| Mechanism | crypto-backed | fiat-backed |
| Backing | Stablecoin basket | RUB deposits in banks |
| Chains deployed | 4 | 2 |
| Primary chain | BSC | Tron |
| Issuer | United Stables | โ |
| CoinGecko | View โ | View โ |
U is USD-pegged and A7A5 tracks RUB, so they serve different currency markets and their market caps are not directly comparable. U holds stablecoin basket; A7A5 holds rub deposits in banks.
U is larger, with $1.53B in circulation vs $544.7M for A7A5. That's roughly 2.8ร the size.
Neither is inherently safer. Safety turns on reserve composition, issuer transparency, redemption rights and regulatory oversight โ none of which this page audits. U uses a crypto-backed model; A7A5 uses a fiat-backed one. Read each issuer's most recent reserve attestation before choosing.
Yes. U and A7A5 both trade on major centralized and decentralized exchanges. Since they track different currencies (USD vs RUB), conversion follows the underlying FX rate. Direct swap protocols on Ethereum, Solana, and other chains offer the tightest spreads.
The right choice depends on your use case. Consider: which chain do you need? U is available on 4 chains and A7A5 on 2. What backing do you prefer? What's your integration surface (exchanges, DeFi protocols, payment providers)? Both have deep liquidity, so market cap alone shouldn't decide it.