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.
SLNG · Utilities · No moat
Doesn't clear the bar
The balanceSheet component abstained: Insufficient leverage/coverage inputs to score the balance sheet. The other four 20% weights were renormalized over the scored 80%.
D · Utilities · No 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%.
XIFR · Utilities · No 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%.
| Measure | SLNG | CDZI | D | XIFR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 18 | 20 (highest) | 18 | 18 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 | moat-index@2.0.0 |
| Business trend | 37 | 32 | 41 | 46 (highest) |
| Pricing power | 9 | 14 (highest) | — | — |
| Returns on capital | 0 (highest) | 0 (highest) | 0 (highest) | 0 (highest) |
| Balance-sheet safety | — | 28 (highest) | 0 | 0 |
| Capital discipline | 24 | 24 | 31 (highest) | 24 |
| Price vs. high estimate | 5108% above high estimate | No price data | 174% above high estimate | 71% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) |
| Market cap | $72.3M | $276.3M | $61.8B | $1.1B |
| Moat tier | No moat | No moat | No moat | No moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |