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.
HLMN · Industrials · 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%.
KRFG · Industrials · Shallow 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 | HLMN | LGIH | CECO | KRFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 46 (highest) | 46 (highest) | 46 (highest) | 45 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 |
| Business trend | 73 | 85 | 88 (highest) | 58 |
| Pricing power | — | 40 | 56 (highest) | 45 |
| Returns on capital | 0 | 42 (highest) | 4 | — |
| Balance-sheet safety | 65 (highest) | 40 | 44 | 55 |
| Capital discipline | 44 (highest) | 21 | 36 | 24 |
| Price vs. high estimate | 209% above high estimate | 41% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | 817% above high estimate | No price data |
| Market cap | $1.6B | $1.3B | $2.8B | $2.8M |
| Moat tier | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2026 |