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.
NAVN · Technology · Narrow moat
On the watchlist
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%.
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 | NAVN | SEZL | EGAN | POWI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 66 (highest) | 66 (highest) | 66 (highest) | 65 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 |
| Business trend | 70 | 77 (highest) | 69 | 77 (highest) |
| Pricing power | 93 | — | 97 (highest) | 85 |
| Returns on capital | — | 100 (highest) | 18 | 46 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 55 | 54 | 100 (highest) | 100 (highest) |
| Capital discipline | 44 (highest) | 32 | 44 (highest) | 20 |
| Price vs. high estimate | No price data | 6537% above high estimate | 341% above high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | 391% above high estimate |
| Market cap | — | $5.8B | $179.3M | $3.9B |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2026 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |