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.
PRVA · Healthcare · 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%.
UHS · Healthcare · 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%.
| Measure | FTLF | ROK | PRVA | UHS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 66 | 67 (highest) | 67 (highest) | 66 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 |
| Business trend | 55 | 39 | 80 | 92 (highest) |
| Pricing power | 62 | 69 (highest) | — | — |
| Returns on capital | 96 | 100 (highest) | 26 | 25 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 36 | 59 | 100 (highest) | 58 |
| Capital allocation | 80 | 68 | 60 | 88 (highest) |
| 35% above value if growth stopped today | 310% above value if growth stopped today | 1576% above value if growth stopped today | 9% above value if growth stopped today (largest discount to value if growth stopped today) | |
| Market cap | $81.4M | $47.6B | $2.7B | $12.0B |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filing date | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |