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.
HLT · Consumer Discretionary · 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 | HLT | YUMC | GOLF | GAP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 71 (highest) | 71 (highest) | 71 (highest) | 71 (highest) |
| Methodology version | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 |
| Business trend | 100 (highest) | 69 | 78 | 66 |
| Pricing power | — | 31 | 84 (highest) | 62 |
| Returns on capital | 78 | 89 | 50 | 90 (highest) |
| Balance-sheet safety | 6 | 100 (highest) | 65 | 80 |
| Capital discipline | 100 (highest) | 68 | 78 | 56 |
| Price vs. high estimate | 389% above high estimate | 6% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | No price data | 5% above high estimate |
| Market cap | $74.9B | $15.4B | Not reported | $7.1B |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2026 |