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.
AMBQ · Technology · Shallow moat
Doesn't clear the bar
The returnsOnCapital component abstained: Not enough years of ROIC data to score returns on capital. The other four 20% weights were renormalized over the scored 80%.
MTSI · Technology · Shallow moat
Doesn't clear the bar
HOLO · Technology · Shallow moat
Doesn't clear the bar
The businessTrend component abstained: Only one aligned fiscal year of revenue and diluted EPS is available; a trend needs at least two observations. The other four 20% weights were renormalized over the scored 80%.
| Measure | AMBQ | MTSI | HOLO | U |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 46 (highest) | 46 (highest) | 46 (highest) | 46 (highest) |
| Methodology version | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 |
| Business trend | 41 | 54 | — | 60 (highest) |
| Pricing power | 44 | 79 | 67 | 96 (highest) |
| Returns on capital | — | 0 | 18 (highest) | 0 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 55 | 72 (highest) | 55 | 28 |
| Capital discipline | 43 | 24 | 44 (highest) | 44 (highest) |
| Price vs. high estimate | No price data | 1419% above high estimate | No price data | No price data |
| Market cap | $1.3B | $20.1B | — | $12.9B |
| Moat tier | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2022 | FY2025 |