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.

Try AAPL vs MSFT vs KO, V vs MA, or COST vs WMT vs TGT.

GWRS · Utilities · No moat

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%.

FE · Utilities · No moat

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%.

XIFR · Utilities · No moat

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%.

SLNG · Utilities · No moat

No 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%.

MeasureGWRSFEXIFRSLNG
Moat Score (0–100)20 (highest)20 (highest)20 (highest)17
Methodology versionmoat-index@3.0.0moat-index@3.0.0moat-index@3.0.0moat-index@3.0.0
Business trend5556 (highest)5534
Pricing power9
Returns on capital0 (highest)0 (highest)0 (highest)0 (highest)
Balance-sheet safety0 (highest)0 (highest)0 (highest)
Capital allocation24 (highest)24 (highest)24 (highest)24 (highest)
246% above value if growth stopped today155% above value if growth stopped today70% below value if growth stopped today (largest discount to value if growth stopped today)6059% above value if growth stopped today
Market cap$212M$28.8B$1.2B$85.5M
Moat tierNo moatNo moatNo moatNo moat
Filing dateFY2025FY2025FY2025FY2025