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.

Try AAPL vs MSFT vs KO, V vs MA, or COST vs WMT vs TGT.

ARKR · Consumer Discretionary · No moat

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%.

CANN · Consumer Discretionary · No moat

No moat

Doesn't clear the bar

PENN · Consumer Discretionary · No moat

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%.

QVCG · Consumer Discretionary · No moat

No moat

Doesn't clear the bar

The businessTrend component abstained: Fewer than two aligned fiscal years of revenue and diluted EPS are available; the filing history does not contain a measurable trend. The other four 20% weights were renormalized over the scored 80%.

MeasureARKRCANNPENNQVCG
Moat Score (0–100)37 (highest)37 (highest)37 (highest)37 (highest)
Methodology versionmoat-index@3.0.0moat-index@3.0.0moat-index@3.0.0moat-index@3.0.0
Business trend4270 (highest)43—
Pricing power—65 (highest)—60
Returns on capital45053 (highest)16
Balance-sheet safety28 (highest)28 (highest)28 (highest)28 (highest)
Capital allocation33242444 (highest)
No price dataNo price dataNo price dataNo price data
Market cap$15.8M$2.1MNot reported$9
Moat tierNo moatNo moatNo moatNo moat
Filing dateFY2025FY2023FY2025FY2025