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.
EOG · Materials · 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 | CHD | SHOO | LUVU | EOG |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 66 | 67 (highest) | 67 (highest) | 66 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 |
| Business trend | 54 | 51 | 42 | 62 (highest) |
| Pricing power | 77 (highest) | 68 | 43 | — |
| Returns on capital | 69 | 93 (highest) | 92 | 64 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 60 | 85 | 86 | 94 (highest) |
| Capital allocation | 72 (highest) | 40 | 71 | 44 |
| 190% above value if growth stopped today | 72% above value if growth stopped today (largest discount to value if growth stopped today) | 439% above value if growth stopped today | No price data | |
| Market cap | $24.4B | $3.4B | $4.6M | Not reported |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filing date | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2026 | FY2025 |