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.
CCLD · Technology · Shallow 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%.
TTWO · Technology · Shallow moat
Doesn't clear the bar
| Measure | CRVW | CCLD | TTWO | LDXC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 46 | 47 (highest) | 46 | 46 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 |
| Business trend | 70 (highest) | 36 | 55 | 42 |
| Pricing power | 100 (highest) | — | 74 | 91 |
| Returns on capital | 0 | 7 | 79 (highest) | 0 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 28 | 99 (highest) | 0 | 55 |
| Capital allocation | 35 | 44 (highest) | 24 | 44 (highest) |
| No price data | 49% below value if growth stopped today | No price data | No price data | |
| Market cap | $17.5M | $81.9M | $38.8B | Not reported |
| Moat tier | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat |
| Filing date | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2026 | FY2026 |