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.
CHDN · Communications · Shallow 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%.
APHP · Communications · 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%.
FUN · Communications · Shallow moat
Doesn't clear the bar
| Measure | CHDN | WBD | APHP | FUN |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 44 | 46 (highest) | 45 | 44 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 |
| Business trend | 95 (highest) | 55 | 43 | 50 |
| Pricing power | — | 100 (highest) | 86 | 100 (highest) |
| Returns on capital | 14 (highest) | 4 | — | 0 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 1 | 0 | 28 (highest) | 28 (highest) |
| Capital allocation | 67 | 70 (highest) | 24 | 41 |
| 30% above value if growth stopped today (largest discount to value if growth stopped today) | 160% above value if growth stopped today | No price data | No price data | |
| Market cap | $6.0B | $63.9B | $11.5M | $1.8B |
| Moat tier | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat |
| Filing date | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |