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.
TEAM · 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%.
DXC · 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%.
| Measure | TEAM | VICR | PAYS | DXC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 65 (highest) | 65 (highest) | 65 (highest) | 65 (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 | 70 | 74 | 90 (highest) | 40 |
| Pricing power | 100 (highest) | 70 | 74 | — |
| Returns on capital | — | 35 | 0 | 70 (highest) |
| Balance-sheet safety | 55 | 100 (highest) | 100 (highest) | 50 |
| Capital discipline | 34 | 44 | 60 | 100 (highest) |
| Price vs. high estimate | No price data | No price data | 370% above high estimate | 90% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) |
| Market cap | $25.2B | — | $489.2M | $1.5B |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2026 |