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.
HHS · Technology · Shallow 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%.
| Measure | HHS | ZETA | FORM | UPWK |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 59 (highest) | 59 (highest) | 59 (highest) | 58 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 |
| Business trend | 19 | 63 | 73 (highest) | 72 |
| Pricing power | — | 100 (highest) | 59 | 96 |
| Returns on capital | 91 (highest) | 0 | 16 | 4 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 100 (highest) | 86 | 100 (highest) | 94 |
| Capital discipline | 24 | 44 | 45 (highest) | 24 |
| Price vs. high estimate | 78% above high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | No price data | 957% above high estimate | 97% above high estimate |
| Market cap | $17.9M | $4.7B | $8.2B | $1.2B |
| Moat tier | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |