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.
CPHC · 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%.
WMG · Communications · Shallow moat
Doesn't clear the bar
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%.
CMCSA · 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%.
| Measure | CPHC | WMG | CMCSA | ZD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 55 (highest) | 55 (highest) | 55 (highest) | 54 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 |
| Business trend | 39 | — | 93 (highest) | 66 |
| Pricing power | — | 80 | — | 100 (highest) |
| Returns on capital | 56 | 57 (highest) | 20 | 29 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 100 (highest) | 14 | 28 | 35 |
| Capital discipline | 24 | 69 | 79 (highest) | 40 |
| Price vs. high estimate | 3% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | No price data | No price data | 11% above high estimate |
| Market cap | $81.1M | — | — | $2.1B |
| Moat tier | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |