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.
PRDO · Consumer Discretionary · 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 | PRDO | LOVE | JILL | KTB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 66 (highest) | 66 (highest) | 66 (highest) | 66 (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 | 52 | 72 (highest) | 38 | 65 |
| Pricing power | — | 90 | 97 (highest) | 69 |
| Returns on capital | 77 | 25 | 88 | 92 (highest) |
| Balance-sheet safety | 73 | 100 (highest) | 56 | 27 |
| Capital discipline | 62 | 44 | 49 | 74 (highest) |
| Price vs. high estimate | 29% below high estimate | 3% below high estimate | 54% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | Around the high estimate |
| Market cap | $1.9B | $257.6M | $237.8M | $4.6B |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2026 | FY2026 | FY2025 |