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.
BDL · Consumer Discretionary · 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%.
MBUU · Consumer Discretionary · Narrow moat
Wonderful & reasonably priced
VLGEA · Consumer Discretionary · Narrow moat
On the watchlist
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%.
| Measure | BDL | UNF | MBUU | VLGEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 62 | 63 (highest) | 63 (highest) | 62 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 |
| Business trend | 55 | 77 (highest) | 75 | — |
| Pricing power | — | 62 (highest) | 33 | 50 |
| Returns on capital | 64 | 14 | 93 (highest) | 32 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 72 | 100 (highest) | 79 | 98 |
| Capital discipline | 58 | 60 | 33 | 69 (highest) |
| Price vs. high estimate | 30% above high estimate | 149% above high estimate | 52% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | No price data |
| Market cap | $72.7M | $5.4B | $552.4M | — |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |