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.
MITK · Technology · Shallow 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%.
AISP · Technology · Shallow 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%.
| Measure | MITK | CLVT | AISP | DOCN |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 50 (highest) | 50 (highest) | 50 (highest) | 50 (highest) |
| Methodology version | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 |
| Business trend | 76 | 67 | 48 | 82 (highest) |
| Pricing power | — | 100 (highest) | 73 | 96 |
| Returns on capital | 9 (highest) | 0 | — | 6 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 55 (highest) | 40 | 55 (highest) | 23 |
| Capital discipline | 60 (highest) | 44 | 24 | 44 |
| Price vs. high estimate | 741% above high estimate | No price data | 22% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | 4978% above high estimate |
| Market cap | $853.4M | $1.5B | $68.7M | $11.0B |
| Moat tier | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |