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.
IMXI · 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%.
| Measure | JBL | IMXI | IBTA | HFUS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 59 | 59 | 72 | 85 (highest) |
| Pricing power | 25 | — | 97 (highest) | 46 |
| Returns on capital | 79 | 90 (highest) | 88 | 83 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 93 | 57 | 55 | 100 (highest) |
| Capital allocation | 100 (highest) | 80 | 44 | 43 |
| 229% above value if growth stopped today | 51% below value if growth stopped today (largest discount to value if growth stopped today) | No price data | No price data | |
| Market cap | $31.6B | $313M | Not reported | $50.1M |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filing date | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |