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.
OTIS · Industrials · 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%.
DTI · Industrials · Narrow moat
Wonderful & reasonably priced
The balanceSheet component abstained: Insufficient leverage/coverage inputs to score the balance sheet. The other four 20% weights were renormalized over the scored 80%.
| Measure | OTIS | ALG | DTI | CNXN |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 63 (highest) | 63 (highest) | 63 (highest) | 63 (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 | 68 | 89 (highest) | 44 | 66 |
| Pricing power | — | 46 | 100 (highest) | 22 |
| Returns on capital | 100 (highest) | 36 | 88 | 53 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 34 | 75 | — | 100 (highest) |
| Capital discipline | 49 | 70 | 20 | 72 (highest) |
| Price vs. high estimate | No price data | 8% below high estimate | 22% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | 60% above high estimate |
| Market cap | — | $1.9B | $80.6M | $2.0B |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |