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.
UBER · Technology · 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 | TRU | UBER | ESTC | EQPT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 51 (highest) | 51 (highest) | 51 (highest) | 51 (highest) |
| Methodology version | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 | moat-index@3.0.0 |
| Business trend | 60 | 80 (highest) | 75 | 75 |
| Pricing power | 100 (highest) | — | 100 (highest) | 84 |
| Returns on capital | 6 | 5 | 0 | 17 (highest) |
| Balance-sheet safety | 18 | 74 (highest) | 55 | 0 |
| Capital allocation | 69 | 44 | 24 | 77 (highest) |
| 162% above value if growth stopped today (largest discount to value if growth stopped today) | 393% above value if growth stopped today | No price data | 711% above value if growth stopped today | |
| Market cap | $14.7B | $136.4B | $6.1B | $1.5B |
| Moat tier | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat |
| Filing date | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2026 | FY2025 |