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.
TULP · Agriculture · No moat
Doesn't clear the bar
The balanceSheet component abstained: Insufficient leverage/coverage inputs to score the balance sheet. The other four 20% weights were renormalized over the scored 80%.
| Measure | ALCO | VRNO | CWBHF | TULP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 28 | 32 (highest) | 31 | 26 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 |
| Business trend | 10 | 35 | 20 | 60 (highest) |
| Pricing power | 4 | 78 (highest) | 56 | 6 |
| Returns on capital | 4 | 0 | 0 | 6 (highest) |
| Balance-sheet safety | 28 | 0 | 55 (highest) | — |
| Capital allocation | 96 (highest) | 44 | 24 | 33 |
| 113% above value if growth stopped today | No price data | No price data | No price data | |
| Market cap | $295M | $2.0B | $38.3M | $6.2M |
| Moat tier | No moat | No moat | No moat | No moat |
| Filing date | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |