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.
CTGG · 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%.
DIS · 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 | CTGG | CXDO | DIS | SPOK |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 57 | 58 (highest) | 58 (highest) | 56 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 |
| Business trend | — | 80 | 93 (highest) | 49 |
| Pricing power | 99 | 81 | — | 100 (highest) |
| Returns on capital | 55 (highest) | 7 | 20 | 4 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 28 | 100 (highest) | 78 | 100 (highest) |
| Capital allocation | 44 (highest) | 24 | 41 | 27 |
| No price data | 846% above value if growth stopped today | 360% above value if growth stopped today | 24% above value if growth stopped today (largest discount to value if growth stopped today) | |
| Market cap | $17 | $205M | $180.2B | $218M |
| Moat tier | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat |
| Filing date | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |