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.
CCLD · Technology · Shallow 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%.
ANKM · 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%.
| Measure | CCLD | HPQ | UPBD | ANKM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 55 (highest) | 55 (highest) | 55 (highest) | 55 (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 | 69 | 37 | 47 | 70 (highest) |
| Pricing power | — | 32 | 81 (highest) | 70 |
| Returns on capital | 7 | 100 (highest) | 93 | — |
| Balance-sheet safety | 99 (highest) | 48 | 28 | 55 |
| Capital discipline | 44 | 58 (highest) | 25 | 24 |
| Price vs. high estimate | 40% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | 36% below high estimate | 55% above high estimate | No price data |
| Market cap | $96.3M | $22.3B | $1.3B | — |
| Moat tier | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |