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.
LLYVA · Communications · No moat
Doesn't clear the bar
The businessTrend component abstained: Only one aligned fiscal year of revenue and diluted EPS is available; a trend needs at least two observations. The other four 20% weights were renormalized over the scored 80%.
AMC · Communications · 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 | LLYVA | CLUS | KTEL | AMC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 24 (highest) | 24 (highest) | 24 (highest) | 23 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 |
| Business trend | — | 20 | 22 | 50 (highest) |
| Pricing power | 23 (highest) | 0 | 17 | — |
| Returns on capital | 0 | 0 | 7 (highest) | 0 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 28 | 55 (highest) | 28 | 0 |
| Capital discipline | 44 (highest) | 44 (highest) | 44 (highest) | 44 (highest) |
| Price vs. high estimate | No price data | No price data | No price data | No price data |
| Market cap | $9.0B | — | $7.9M | $1.5B |
| Moat tier | No moat | No moat | No moat | No moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |