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.
ETN · Industrials · Narrow moat
On the watchlist
The balanceSheet component abstained: Insufficient leverage/coverage inputs to score the balance sheet. The other four 20% weights were renormalized over the scored 80%.
EDUC · Industrials · Narrow moat
Wonderful & reasonably priced
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 | ETN | EDUC | PRLB | PH |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 66 | 67 (highest) | 66 | 66 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 |
| Business trend | 82 | 51 | 85 (highest) | 77 |
| Pricing power | 53 | 96 (highest) | 73 | 34 |
| Returns on capital | 50 | — | 19 | 70 (highest) |
| Balance-sheet safety | — | 78 | 100 (highest) | 58 |
| Capital discipline | 81 | 42 | 55 | 91 (highest) |
| Price vs. high estimate | 155% above high estimate | 49% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | 314% above high estimate | 166% above high estimate |
| Market cap | $155.7B | $12.4M | $1.8B | $120.4B |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2026 | FY2025 | FY2025 |