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.
ARCB · Industrials · Narrow 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%.
| Measure | ARCB | EPAC | SOTK | WEYS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 62 (highest) | 62 (highest) | 62 (highest) | 62 (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 | 66 (highest) | 60 | 53 | 62 |
| Pricing power | — | 69 | 70 (highest) | 66 |
| Returns on capital | 32 | 38 (highest) | 18 | 38 (highest) |
| Balance-sheet safety | 62 | 100 (highest) | 100 (highest) | 73 |
| Capital discipline | 89 (highest) | 44 | 70 | 72 |
| Price vs. high estimate | 62% above high estimate | No price data | 405% above high estimate | 11% above high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) |
| Market cap | $3.5B | — | $84.5M | $370.1M |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2026 | FY2025 |