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%.
PRVA · Healthcare · Narrow moat
On the watchlist
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 | UHS | PRVA | FTLF | TECH |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 66 | 67 (highest) | 66 | 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 | 92 (highest) | 80 | 55 | 45 |
| Pricing power | — | — | 62 | 100 (highest) |
| Returns on capital | 25 | 26 | 96 (highest) | 24 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 58 | 100 (highest) | 36 | 100 (highest) |
| Capital allocation | 88 (highest) | 60 | 80 | 58 |
| 8% above value if growth stopped today (largest discount to value if growth stopped today) | 1642% above value if growth stopped today | 31% above value if growth stopped today | 307% above value if growth stopped today | |
| Market cap | $11.9B | $2.8B | $78.8M | $11.3B |
| Moat tier | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat | Narrow moat |
| Filing date | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2026 |