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.
UHS · Healthcare · 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%.
MDNC · Healthcare · Narrow moat
On the watchlist
The businessTrend component abstained: Fewer than two aligned fiscal years of revenue and diluted EPS are available; the filing history does not contain a measurable trend. The other four 20% weights were renormalized over the scored 80%.
| Measure | TECH | FTLF | UHS | MDNC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 65 | 66 (highest) | 66 (highest) | 65 |
| Methodology version | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 |
| Business trend | 45 | 55 | 92 (highest) | — |
| Pricing power | 100 (highest) | 62 | — | 84 |
| Returns on capital | 24 | 96 | 25 | 100 (highest) |
| Balance-sheet safety | 100 (highest) | 36 | 58 | 54 |
| Capital allocation | 58 | 80 | 88 (highest) | 24 |
| 307% above value if growth stopped today | 34% above value if growth stopped today | 10% above value if growth stopped today (largest discount to value if growth stopped today) | No price data | |
| Market cap | $11.3B | $80.5M | $12.1B | Not reported |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filing date | FY2026 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2026 |