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.
ETST · Healthcare · Shallow moat
Doesn't clear the bar
The balanceSheet component abstained: Insufficient leverage/coverage inputs to score the balance sheet. The other four 20% weights were renormalized over the scored 80%.
LUCY · Healthcare · 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 | ETST | LUCY | NEOG | TRNS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 46 (highest) | 46 (highest) | 46 (highest) | 46 (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 | 85 | 63 | 62 | 90 (highest) |
| Pricing power | 41 | 0 | 80 (highest) | 39 |
| Returns on capital | 34 (highest) | — | 17 | 17 |
| Balance-sheet safety | — | 78 (highest) | 28 | 24 |
| Capital discipline | 24 | 44 | 44 | 60 (highest) |
| Price vs. high estimate | 16% above high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | No price data | No price data | 420% above high estimate |
| Market cap | $40.8M | $4.1M | $2.2B | $803.6M |
| Moat tier | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2026 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2026 |