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.
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 | SHOP | MMS | GDDY | ZETA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 60 (highest) | 60 (highest) | 60 (highest) | 60 (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 | 78 (highest) | 71 | 56 | 70 |
| Pricing power | 84 | 38 | — | 100 (highest) |
| Returns on capital | 0 | 72 (highest) | 46 | 0 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 100 (highest) | 39 | 39 | 86 |
| Capital discipline | 38 | 81 | 100 (highest) | 44 |
| Price vs. high estimate | 1810% above high estimate | 40% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | 17% above high estimate | No price data |
| Market cap | $148.4B | $3.3B | $12.6B | $4.2B |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |