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.
THC · Healthcare · Shallow 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 | THC | SUPN | DHR | RGEN |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 58 (highest) | 58 (highest) | 58 (highest) | 58 (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 | 54 | 61 | 69 | 77 (highest) |
| Pricing power | — | 98 (highest) | 95 | 85 |
| Returns on capital | 49 | 78 (highest) | 7 | 11 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 28 | 55 | 68 (highest) | 56 |
| Capital discipline | 100 (highest) | 0 | 52 | 60 |
| Price vs. high estimate | 9% below high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | 186% above high estimate | 114% above high estimate | 608% above high estimate |
| Market cap | $16.9B | $2.7B | $142.2B | $8.2B |
| Moat tier | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |