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.
SEZL · Technology · 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 | LOGI | ETSY | DSNY | SEZL |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 67 (highest) | 67 (highest) | 67 (highest) | 67 (highest) |
| Methodology version | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 |
| Business trend | 51 | 51 | 39 | 80 (highest) |
| Pricing power | 63 | 99 (highest) | 99 (highest) | — |
| Returns on capital | 100 (highest) | 91 | 78 | 100 (highest) |
| Balance-sheet safety | 100 (highest) | 31 | 55 | 54 |
| Capital allocation | 20 | 64 (highest) | 64 (highest) | 32 |
| No price data | 88% above value if growth stopped today | 7% below value if growth stopped today (largest discount to value if growth stopped today) | 4657% above value if growth stopped today | |
| Market cap | Not reported | $8.0B | $3.5M | $4.2B |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filing date | FY2026 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |