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.
PPG · Materials · Narrow moat
On the watchlist
The balanceSheet component abstained: Insufficient leverage/coverage inputs to score the balance sheet. The other four 20% weights were renormalized over the scored 80%.
MGY · Materials · 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%.
EXP · Materials · 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 | PPG | MGY | WWW | EXP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 75 | 77 (highest) | 75 | 75 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 |
| Business trend | 60 | 75 | 59 | 89 (highest) |
| Pricing power | 68 (highest) | — | 66 | 43 |
| Returns on capital | 92 (highest) | 88 | 86 | 84 |
| Balance-sheet safety | — | 98 | 100 (highest) | — |
| Capital discipline | 79 | 45 | 66 | 82 (highest) |
| Price vs. high estimate | 26% above high estimate | 10% above high estimate | No price data | 24% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) |
| Market cap | $25.9B | $4.7B | — | $6.3B |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2026 |