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.
IQV · Consumer Discretionary · 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 | IQV | MAT | TRN | KR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 48 (highest) | 48 (highest) | 48 (highest) | 48 (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 | 88 (highest) | 34 | 88 (highest) | 48 |
| Pricing power | — | 73 (highest) | 31 | 42 |
| Returns on capital | 2 | 40 | 24 | 44 (highest) |
| Balance-sheet safety | 2 | 41 | 40 | 67 (highest) |
| Capital discipline | 100 (highest) | 54 | 58 | 40 |
| Price vs. high estimate | 73% above high estimate | 36% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | No price data | No price data |
| Market cap | $35.3B | $4.3B | Not reported | Not reported |
| Moat tier | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2026 |