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.
IVZ · Other · No 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%.
GROW · Other · No 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%.
ACGP · Other · No 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 | IVZ | GROW | ACGP | AIFC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 23 | 33 (highest) | 32 | 29 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 |
| Business trend | 39 | 15 | 51 (highest) | 22 |
| Pricing power | — | — | — | 26 |
| Returns on capital | 2 | 7 (highest) | 0 | 0 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 28 | 55 (highest) | 28 | 55 (highest) |
| Capital discipline | 24 | 56 (highest) | 50 | 44 |
| Price vs. high estimate | 83% above high estimate | 10% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | No price data | No price data |
| Market cap | $13.2B | $31.6M | — | $71.8M |
| Moat tier | No moat | No moat | No moat | No moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2024 | FY2025 |