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.
FANG · Materials · No 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%.
CLNV · Materials · No 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 | FANG | VHI | CLNV | LTBR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 36 (highest) | 36 (highest) | 36 (highest) | 36 (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 | 69 (highest) | 40 | 20 | 11 |
| Pricing power | — | 12 | 72 (highest) | 68 |
| Returns on capital | 18 | 69 (highest) | — | 0 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 32 | 15 | 28 | 55 (highest) |
| Capital discipline | 24 | 44 (highest) | 24 | 44 (highest) |
| Price vs. high estimate | 59% above high estimate | 58% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | No price data | No price data |
| Market cap | $55.6B | $408.2M | $4.4M | $248.9M |
| Moat tier | No moat | No moat | No moat | No moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2024 | FY2025 |