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.
CTSH · Technology · Wide 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%.
KFY · Technology · Wide 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 | CTSH | ANET | KFY | ROL |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 90 | 91 (highest) | 91 (highest) | 90 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 |
| Business trend | 98 (highest) | 97 | 91 | 93 |
| Pricing power | — | 100 (highest) | — | 86 |
| Returns on capital | 89 | 100 (highest) | 72 | 100 (highest) |
| Balance-sheet safety | 100 (highest) | 100 (highest) | 100 (highest) | 92 |
| Capital discipline | 75 | 60 | 100 (highest) | 80 |
| Price vs. high estimate | 52% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | 802% above high estimate | 17% below high estimate | 138% above high estimate |
| Market cap | $21.4B | $212.8B | $3.9B | $21.5B |
| Moat tier | Wide moat | Wide moat | Wide moat | Wide moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2026 | FY2025 |