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.
SF · Other · 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%.
VRTS · Other · 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%.
CNS · Other · 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 | SF | VRTS | CNS | WT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 78 | 81 (highest) | 79 | 78 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 |
| Business trend | 79 | 74 | 78 | 81 (highest) |
| Pricing power | — | — | — | 100 |
| Returns on capital | 88 | 89 | 100 (highest) | 93 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 78 | 100 (highest) | 100 (highest) | 37 |
| Capital discipline | 69 | 60 | 39 | 81 (highest) |
| Price vs. high estimate | No price data | 70% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | 49% above high estimate | 275% above high estimate |
| Market cap | — | $1.1B | $4.2B | $2.8B |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Wide moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |