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.
PYPL · Technology · Wide 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 | PYPL | UI | PAYC | JKHY |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 89 (highest) | 89 (highest) | 89 (highest) | 88 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 |
| Business trend | 97 (highest) | 76 | 82 | 93 |
| Pricing power | — | 70 | 100 (highest) | 71 |
| Returns on capital | 77 | 100 (highest) | 100 (highest) | 100 (highest) |
| Balance-sheet safety | 81 | 98 | 73 | 100 (highest) |
| Capital discipline | 100 (highest) | 100 (highest) | 89 | 77 |
| Price vs. high estimate | 36% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | 339% above high estimate | 34% above high estimate | 64% above high estimate |
| Market cap | $52.3B | $32.2B | $8.2B | $11.2B |
| Moat tier | Wide moat | Wide moat | Wide moat | Wide moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |