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.
TASK · 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%.
TZOO · Technology · Narrow moat
On the watchlist
The returnsOnCapital component abstained: Not enough years of ROIC data to score returns on capital. The other four 20% weights were renormalized over the scored 80%.
| Measure | TASK | BSY | AVGO | TZOO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 69 (highest) | 69 (highest) | 69 (highest) | 69 (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 | 97 (highest) | 88 | 81 | 37 |
| Pricing power | — | 100 (highest) | 86 | 99 |
| Returns on capital | 35 | 45 | 69 (highest) | — |
| Balance-sheet safety | 67 | 61 | 49 | 100 (highest) |
| Capital discipline | 77 (highest) | 52 | 60 | 40 |
| Price vs. high estimate | 55% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | 135% above high estimate | 555% above high estimate | 29% above high estimate |
| Market cap | $541.4M | $10.8B | $1.79T | $120.1M |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |