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.
DXC · Technology · Narrow 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%.
TEAM · Technology · Narrow moat
On the watchlist
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 | DXC | PAYS | TEAM | RSKIA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 65 (highest) | 65 (highest) | 65 (highest) | 65 (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 | 40 | 90 (highest) | 70 | 81 |
| Pricing power | — | 74 | 100 (highest) | 80 |
| Returns on capital | 70 (highest) | 0 | — | 17 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 50 | 100 (highest) | 55 | 73 |
| Capital discipline | 100 (highest) | 60 | 34 | 73 |
| Price vs. high estimate | 90% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | 370% above high estimate | No price data | 24% above high estimate |
| Market cap | $1.5B | $489.2M | $25.2B | $161.0M |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2026 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |