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.
LEG · Materials · No moat
Doesn't clear the bar
The returnsOnCapital component abstained: Not enough years of ROIC data to score returns on capital. The other four 20% weights were renormalized over the scored 80%.
APHD · Materials · No moat
Doesn't clear the bar
The businessTrend component abstained: Fewer than two aligned fiscal years of revenue and diluted EPS are available; the filing history does not contain a measurable trend. The other four 20% weights were renormalized over the scored 80%.
| Measure | LEG | APHD | MBC | MATV |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 25 | 26 (highest) | 26 (highest) | 25 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 |
| Business trend | 10 | — | 28 | 55 (highest) |
| Pricing power | 30 | 50 (highest) | 48 | 20 |
| Returns on capital | — | 0 | 27 (highest) | 0 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 37 (highest) | 28 | 3 | 28 |
| Capital discipline | 25 (highest) | 24 | 21 | 24 |
| Price vs. high estimate | 54% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | No price data | 41% below high estimate | Around the high estimate |
| Market cap | $1.5B | $2.6B | $1.1B | $444M |
| Moat tier | No moat | No moat | No moat | No moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2023 | FY2025 | FY2025 |