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.
SEZL · Technology · 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%.
HSTM · Technology · 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%.
GDDY · Technology · 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%.
| Measure | SEZL | HSTM | GDDY | EGAN |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 77 | 69 | 78 (highest) | 69 |
| Pricing power | — | — | — | 97 |
| Returns on capital | 100 (highest) | 0 | 46 | 18 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 54 | 100 (highest) | 39 | 100 (highest) |
| Capital discipline | 32 | 94 | 100 (highest) | 44 |
| Price vs. high estimate | 6537% above high estimate | 14% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | 19% above high estimate | 341% above high estimate |
| Market cap | $5.8B | $838.0M | $12.8B | $179.3M |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |