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.
CHTR · Communications · 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%.
SGA · Communications · 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%.
CNVS · Communications · 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%.
| Measure | CHTR | SGA | GAME | CNVS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 33 | 34 (highest) | 33 | 32 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 |
| Business trend | 44 | 35 | 57 (highest) | 47 |
| Pricing power | — | — | 38 | — |
| Returns on capital | 11 (highest) | 8 | 0 | 4 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 40 | 55 (highest) | 28 | 55 (highest) |
| Capital discipline | 37 | 36 | 44 (highest) | 24 |
| Price vs. high estimate | No price data | 45% below high estimate | No price data | No price data |
| Market cap | — | $56.6M | $38.0M | $58.8M |
| Moat tier | No moat | No moat | No moat | No moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2026 |