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.

Try AAPL vs MSFT vs KO, V vs MA, or COST vs WMT vs TGT.

LLYVA · Communications · No moat

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%.

WNLV · Communications · No moat

No moat

Doesn't clear the bar

The capitalDiscipline component abstained: Not enough owner-earnings history to score capital discipline. The other four 20% weights were renormalized over the scored 80%.

XPOF · Communications · No moat

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%.

STRZ · Communications · No moat

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%.

MeasureLLYVAWNLVXPOFSTRZ
Moat Score (0–100)24 (highest)24 (highest)24 (highest)23
Methodology versionmoat-index@3.0.0moat-index@3.0.0moat-index@3.0.0moat-index@3.0.0
Business trend2865 (highest)25
Pricing power2341 (highest)
Returns on capital007 (highest)0
Balance-sheet safety28 (highest)28 (highest)028 (highest)
Capital allocation44 (highest)2439
No price dataNo price dataNo price dataNo price data
Market cap$8.8B$110994$220M$410M
Moat tierNo moatNo moatNo moatNo moat
Filing dateFY2025FY2025FY2025FY2025