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.
TASK · Technology · 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 | PATH | TASK | FRSH | PINS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 66 (highest) | 66 (highest) | 66 (highest) | 66 (highest) |
| Methodology version | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 |
| Business trend | 85 (highest) | 85 (highest) | 85 (highest) | 85 (highest) |
| Pricing power | 100 (highest) | — | 100 (highest) | 94 |
| Returns on capital | 0 | 35 (highest) | 0 | 5 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 100 (highest) | 67 | 100 (highest) | 100 (highest) |
| Capital allocation | 44 | 77 (highest) | 44 | 44 |
| No price data | 31% below value if growth stopped today | No price data | No price data | |
| Market cap | $5.9B | $513M | $3.0B | Not reported |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filing date | FY2026 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |