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.
LGL · Technology · Shallow moat
Doesn't clear the bar
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%.
ATDS · Technology · Shallow moat
Doesn't clear the bar
The returnsOnCapital component abstained: Not enough years of ROIC data to score returns on capital. The other four 20% weights were renormalized over the scored 80%.
| Measure | RBA | LGL | WDC | ATDS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 52 (highest) | 52 (highest) | 52 (highest) | 52 (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 | 95 (highest) | 65 | 60 | 57 |
| Pricing power | 32 | — | 25 | 79 (highest) |
| Returns on capital | 41 | 9 | 42 (highest) | — |
| Balance-sheet safety | 32 | 100 (highest) | 73 | 28 |
| Capital allocation | 60 (highest) | 34 | 60 (highest) | 44 |
| 266% above value if growth stopped today (largest discount to value if growth stopped today) | 766% above value if growth stopped today | 598% above value if growth stopped today | No price data | |
| Market cap | $15.7B | $41.6M | $119.9B | $109357 |
| Moat tier | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat |
| Filing date | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2026 | FY2025 |