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.
DASH · Technology · 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%.
INVU · Technology · Shallow moat
Doesn't clear the bar
The returnsOnCapital component abstained: Not enough years of ROIC data to score returns on capital. The other four 20% weights were renormalized over the scored 80%.
| Measure | DASH | INVU | EBAY | TBLA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 58 (highest) | 58 (highest) | 58 (highest) | 57 |
| 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 (highest) | 27 | 38 | 77 |
| Pricing power | — | 86 | 99 (highest) | 49 |
| Returns on capital | 6 | — | 65 (highest) | 0 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 100 (highest) | 55 | 46 | 100 (highest) |
| Capital discipline | 44 | 62 (highest) | 40 | 60 |
| Price vs. high estimate | No price data | 661% above high estimate | 118% above high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | No price data |
| Market cap | $76.0B | $47.9M | $49.1B | Not reported |
| Moat tier | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |