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 | LDOS | CVLT | AVGO | IMXI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 71 | 72 (highest) | 72 (highest) | 71 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 |
| Business trend | 82 | 85 | 95 (highest) | 59 |
| Pricing power | 22 | 100 (highest) | 86 | — |
| Returns on capital | 74 | 7 | 69 | 90 (highest) |
| Balance-sheet safety | 80 (highest) | 71 | 49 | 57 |
| Capital allocation | 100 (highest) | 96 | 60 | 80 |
| 41% above value if growth stopped today | 680% above value if growth stopped today | 872% above value if growth stopped today | 51% below value if growth stopped today (largest discount to value if growth stopped today) | |
| Market cap | $15.2B | $6.4B | $1.64T | $313M |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filing date | FY2025 | FY2026 | FY2025 | FY2025 |