The Moat Index
Compare moats, side by side.
Two to four companies, scored on the same five investor questions from their SEC filings — so the comparison is apples to apples. The method is fully public.
CDNS · Technology · Wide moat
On the watchlist
The pricingPower component abstained: Not enough years of gross-margin data to score pricing power. The other four 20% weights were renormalized over the scored 80%.
CTSH · Technology · Wide moat
Wonderful & reasonably priced
The pricingPower component abstained: Not enough years of gross-margin data to score pricing power. The other four 20% weights were renormalized over the scored 80%.
| Measure | ABNB | RCMT | CDNS | CTSH |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 84 | 85 (highest) | 85 (highest) | 84 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 |
| Business trend | 80 | 90 | 100 (highest) | 73 |
| Pricing power | 98 (highest) | 44 | — | — |
| Returns on capital | 100 (highest) | 90 | 100 (highest) | 89 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 100 (highest) | 100 (highest) | 55 | 100 (highest) |
| Capital discipline | 44 | 100 (highest) | 85 | 75 |
| Price vs. high estimate | 215% above high estimate | 10% above high estimate | 354% above high estimate | 51% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) |
| Market cap | $87.9B | $203M | $88.7B | $21.8B |
| Moat tier | Wide moat | Wide moat | Wide moat | Wide moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |