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.
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%.
NTSK · Technology · Narrow moat
On the watchlist
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%.
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%.
| Measure | HSTM | NTSK | AMD | GDDY |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 69 | 70 | 74 | 78 (highest) |
| Pricing power | — | 96 (highest) | 58 | — |
| Returns on capital | 0 | — | 74 (highest) | 46 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 100 (highest) | 55 | 100 (highest) | 39 |
| Capital discipline | 94 | 44 | 24 | 100 (highest) |
| Price vs. high estimate | 14% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | No price data | 1185% above high estimate | 19% above high estimate |
| Market cap | $838.0M | $2.9B | $820.8B | $12.8B |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2026 | FY2025 | FY2025 |