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.
ACBM · Communications · No moat
Doesn't clear the bar
The capitalDiscipline component abstained: Not enough owner-earnings history to score capital discipline. The other four 20% weights were renormalized over the scored 80%.
SLDC · Communications · No moat
Doesn't clear the bar
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%.
MYSE · Communications · No moat
Doesn't clear the bar
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 | ACBM | SLDC | VIVC | MYSE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 20 | 22 (highest) | 21 | 19 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 |
| Business trend | 16 | 35 (highest) | 20 | 25 |
| Pricing power | 1 | — | 17 (highest) | — |
| Returns on capital | 6 | 0 | 18 (highest) | 0 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 55 (highest) | 28 | 28 | 28 |
| Capital discipline | — | 24 (highest) | 24 (highest) | 24 (highest) |
| Price vs. high estimate | No price data | No price data | No price data | No price data |
| Market cap | $1.6M | — | $712684 | $11.9M |
| Moat tier | No moat | No moat | No moat | No moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2016 | FY2025 | FY2025 |