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.
GRBK · Industrials · Narrow moat
Wonderful & reasonably priced
The balanceSheet component abstained: Insufficient leverage/coverage inputs to score the balance sheet. The other four 20% weights were renormalized over the scored 80%.
OTIS · Industrials · 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 | KMT | NUS | GRBK | OTIS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 62 | 63 (highest) | 63 (highest) | 62 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 |
| Business trend | 73 | 20 | 95 (highest) | 65 |
| Pricing power | 46 | 98 (highest) | 33 | — |
| Returns on capital | 24 | 75 | 24 | 100 (highest) |
| Balance-sheet safety | 78 (highest) | 62 | — | 34 |
| Capital allocation | 91 | 61 | 100 (highest) | 49 |
| 29% above value if growth stopped today | 83% below value if growth stopped today (largest discount to value if growth stopped today) | 12% below value if growth stopped today | No price data | |
| Market cap | $2.3B | $220M | $2.9B | Not reported |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filing date | FY2026 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |