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%.
HUCK · Technology · Shallow moat
Doesn't clear the bar
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 | UBER | LAW | HUCK | ESTC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 80 (highest) | 56 | 61 | 75 |
| Pricing power | — | 100 (highest) | 91 | 100 (highest) |
| Returns on capital | 5 (highest) | 0 | — | 0 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 74 (highest) | 55 | 28 | 55 |
| Capital allocation | 44 (highest) | 44 (highest) | 24 | 24 |
| 426% above value if growth stopped today | No price data | No price data | No price data | |
| Market cap | $145.5B | $281M | $127M | $9.6B |
| Moat tier | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat |
| Filing date | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2026 | FY2026 |