Leopard Energy, Inc.
LEEN · Consumer Discretionary · $169553 mkt cap · FY2025 filings · Shallow moat ·
Doesn't clear the bar
The five investor questions
2024–2025: revenue 4429.00 to 5974.00, increasing; diluted EPS -0.20 to 0.03, increasing. Latest-filed diluted EPS remains usable for Business Trend, but an integer share-count change lacks enough evidence to confirm a comparable EPS basis; valuation growth therefore stays at 0%. Two-year history is scoreable but carries less confidence than a full-cycle record.
Median gross margin 100.0% over 2y, very stable.
Median ROIC -10.3%, above the 12% hurdle in 0% of years.
Net cash position — no leverage risk.
Owner earnings trend unclear, share count n/a.
Price vs. owner-earnings value range
- Owner earnings (normalized)
- —
- Value range / share
- —
- Conservative high estimate / share
- —
- Recent price
- $0.13
- Price vs. high estimate
- No price data
Conservative range under moat-index@2.0.0: low end 11.1×, high end capped at 18×; 9% discount rate; high-end growth 0% (capped at 4%) using min(5y revenue CAGR, 5y diluted-EPS CAGR), clamped to 0%–4%; maintenance capex uses min(capex, D&A); abstain when D&A is unavailable. This is a disclosed model range, not intrinsic value as fact.
18 years of fundamentals
The business, in plain English
Leopard Energy, Inc. booked $5974 of revenue in FY2025 in the Consumer Discretionary sector and kept 100.0% of it as gross profit — a high-margin business by that measure. After every other cost, 532.9% of each revenue dollar reached the bottom line.
LEEN's filings don't disclose total debt in a form the methodology can use, so leverage is treated as unmeasured — never assumed to be zero.
The share count fell 98.9% between FY2009 and FY2025 — management has been retiring shares, which concentrates each remaining owner's claim. Capital Discipline scores it 44/100.
Put together: Pricing Power is the strongest of the five filters (100/100) and Returns on Capital the weakest (0/100), which is how LEEN lands at 57/100 — a Shallow moat.
This breakdown is generated from the filed numbers and sub-scores above — no outside narrative, no estimates. Where a filing doesn’t disclose an input, the sentence that would need it is omitted instead of guessed.
Gaps in a line mean that item isn’t in LEEN’s filings for that year — the series is never interpolated or estimated. The Table view lists every filed value, including operating and net margins, total debt, and share count.
Moat Score history
Tier changesSame-methodology crossings of the Wide / Narrow / Shallow bars
- Methodology upgraded moat-index@1.2.0tomoat-index@2.0.0 — readings across versions aren’t comparedJul 20, 2026
Scores are logged append-only and never overwritten — this record can’t be backfilled, which is exactly why it’s worth keeping.
Track record
How Leopard Energy, Inc.’s moat rated in each of the years we can reconstruct from its filings — scored only on what was knowable at the time — and what its price and returns did afterward. The score never saw a price; the two are joined only in hindsight, for education, not as a signal.
How to read this: each dot is what the engine would have scored LEEN on that December 31; the line below is its total-return price path (dividends reinvested) in the years since.
Two tracks, one timeline: the score has its own 0–100 scale (top), the price its own 100-based scale (bottom) — never a shared axis. The price path is a total-return (dividends reinvested) index built from the same data the forward returns use; gaps in the score line are years with no reconstructed rating (see the table for why). The Table view carries every value.
What followed, in the years it rated Wide
In the reconstructed history shown, LEEN did not rate Wide-moat in any year, so there is no wide-moat track record to report. That absence is itself the honest answer — we don’t manufacture a comparison where the rating never earned one.
Consumer Discretionary context
#163 of 482 scored Consumer Discretionary companies, ranked by Moat Score.
Nearest peers by Moat Score
- #161CHWY CHEWY, INC.56.9 out of 100, Shallow moatShallow moat
- #162JAKK JAKKS Pacific, Inc.56.8 out of 100, Shallow moatShallow moat
- #164VSXY VICTORIA'S SECRET & CO.56.4 out of 100, Shallow moatShallow moat
- #165FLYE Fly-E Group, Inc.56.4 out of 100, Shallow moatShallow moat
Compare LEEN with its nearest peers →All Consumer Discretionary companies on the Index →
Common questions about LEEN
- Does Leopard Energy, Inc. have an economic moat?
- Based on its FY2025 SEC filings, the Moat Index scores Leopard Energy, Inc. (LEEN) 56.8 out of 100 — a Shallow moat. The five questions behind that score begin at 20% each; if exactly one genuinely lacks data, the other four weights are renormalized and disclosed. revenue and EPS trend 85, pricing power 100, returns on capital 0, balance-sheet safety 55, capital discipline 44.
- How has LEEN's Moat Score changed over time?
- The record logs 8 readings since Jul 17, 2026; the latest reads 56.8 out of 100 (shallow moat). No tier changes on record yet. (A methodology upgrade on Jul 20, 2026 re-based the score; readings across engine versions aren't compared.) The history is append-only — readings are only ever added, never rewritten.