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.
DTI · Industrials · Narrow moat
Wonderful & reasonably priced
The balanceSheet component abstained: Insufficient leverage/coverage inputs to score the balance sheet. The other four 20% weights were renormalized over the scored 80%.
OTIS · Industrials · Narrow 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%.
| Measure | DTI | MWA | ALG | OTIS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 63 (highest) | 63 (highest) | 63 (highest) | 63 (highest) |
| Methodology version | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 |
| Business trend | 44 | 55 | 89 (highest) | 68 |
| Pricing power | 100 (highest) | 54 | 46 | — |
| Returns on capital | 88 | 42 | 36 | 100 (highest) |
| Balance-sheet safety | — | 82 (highest) | 75 | 34 |
| Capital discipline | 20 | 85 (highest) | 70 | 49 |
| Price vs. high estimate | 22% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | 117% above high estimate | 8% below high estimate | No price data |
| Market cap | $80.6M | $3.9B | $1.9B | — |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |