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.
RMR · Consumer Discretionary · 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%.
PZZA · Consumer Discretionary · 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%.
SAH · Consumer Discretionary · Narrow moat
Wonderful & reasonably priced
| Measure | RMR | PZZA | YUM | SAH |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 63 (highest) | 63 (highest) | 63 (highest) | 63 (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 | 58 | 68 | 62 | 83 (highest) |
| Pricing power | — | — | 90 (highest) | 29 |
| Returns on capital | 100 (highest) | 96 | 100 (highest) | 45 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 74 (highest) | 48 | 7 | 58 |
| Capital discipline | 20 | 40 | 56 | 100 (highest) |
| Price vs. high estimate | No price data | 20% above high estimate | 45% above high estimate | 43% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) |
| Market cap | — | $1.1B | $40.7B | $3.3B |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |