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.
CHH · Consumer Discretionary · 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 | LRN | DRI | TDG | CHH |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 77 | 78 (highest) | 78 (highest) | 77 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 |
| Business trend | 100 (highest) | 94 | 100 (highest) | 95 |
| Pricing power | 60 | 31 | 93 (highest) | — |
| Returns on capital | 48 | 97 | 75 | 100 (highest) |
| Balance-sheet safety | 100 (highest) | 72 | 40 | 12 |
| Capital allocation | 77 | 94 | 80 | 100 (highest) |
| Around the value if growth stopped today (largest discount to value if growth stopped today) | 108% above value if growth stopped today | No price data | 43% above value if growth stopped today | |
| Market cap | $3.4B | $23.8B | Not reported | $4.8B |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filing date | FY2026 | FY2026 | FY2025 | FY2025 |