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.
OPAL · Utilities · 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%.
WELPP · Utilities · Shallow moat
Doesn't clear the bar
The businessTrend component abstained: Fewer than two aligned fiscal years of revenue and diluted EPS are available; the filing history does not contain a measurable trend. The other four 20% weights were renormalized over the scored 80%.
| Measure | OPAL | WELPP | PNW | NRG |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 41 | 42 (highest) | 41 | 41 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 |
| Business trend | 80 (highest) | — | 70 | 70 |
| Pricing power | — | 99 | 100 (highest) | 14 |
| Returns on capital | 40 | 16 | 2 | 49 (highest) |
| Balance-sheet safety | 0 | 16 (highest) | 1 | 7 |
| Capital discipline | 44 | 35 | 33 | 64 (highest) |
| Price vs. high estimate | No price data | No price data | 70% above high estimate | 12% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) |
| Market cap | — | $2.2B | $12.9B | $24.9B |
| Moat tier | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |