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.
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%.
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%.
| Measure | DIS | GSAT | CXDO | CTGG |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 58 | 60 (highest) | 58 | 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 | 93 (highest) | 60 | 80 | — |
| Pricing power | — | 100 (highest) | 81 | 99 |
| Returns on capital | 20 | 0 | 7 | 55 (highest) |
| Balance-sheet safety | 78 | 95 | 100 (highest) | 28 |
| Capital allocation | 41 | 44 (highest) | 24 | 44 (highest) |
| 431% above value if growth stopped today (largest discount to value if growth stopped today) | No price data | 694% above value if growth stopped today | No price data | |
| Market cap | $208.2B | $157.9B | $172M | $14 |
| Moat tier | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat |
| Filing date | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |