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.
GDDY · Technology · 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%.
HSTM · 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%.
SEZL · Technology · 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%.
| Measure | GDDY | AMD | HSTM | SEZL |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 66 (highest) | 66 (highest) | 66 (highest) | 66 (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 | 78 (highest) | 74 | 69 | 77 |
| Pricing power | — | 58 | — | — |
| Returns on capital | 46 | 74 | 0 | 100 (highest) |
| Balance-sheet safety | 39 | 100 (highest) | 100 (highest) | 54 |
| Capital discipline | 100 (highest) | 24 | 94 | 32 |
| Price vs. high estimate | 19% above high estimate | 1185% above high estimate | 14% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | 6537% above high estimate |
| Market cap | $12.8B | $820.8B | $838.0M | $5.8B |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |