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.
HSTM · Technology · Narrow moat
Wonderful & reasonably priced
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 | CRM | HSTM | ZM | PLAB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 69 (highest) | 69 (highest) | 69 (highest) | 69 (highest) |
| 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) | 84 | 80 | 93 |
| Pricing power | 100 (highest) | — | 98 | 21 |
| Returns on capital | 0 | 0 | 24 | 46 (highest) |
| Balance-sheet safety | 90 | 100 (highest) | 100 (highest) | 100 (highest) |
| Capital discipline | 60 | 94 (highest) | 44 | 83 |
| Price vs. high estimate | 88% above high estimate | 18% below high estimate | 49% above high estimate | 23% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) |
| Market cap | $152.0B | $803M | $27.0B | $1.7B |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2026 | FY2025 | FY2026 | FY2025 |