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.
UPYY · 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%.
GDRX · 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%.
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 | UPYY | GDRX | UBER | CLVT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moat Score (0–100) | 50 (highest) | 50 (highest) | 50 (highest) | 50 (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 | 23 | 86 (highest) | 78 | 67 |
| Pricing power | 86 | — | — | 100 (highest) |
| Returns on capital | — | 0 | 5 (highest) | 0 |
| Balance-sheet safety | 28 | 37 | 74 (highest) | 40 |
| Capital discipline | 64 | 78 (highest) | 44 | 44 |
| Price vs. high estimate | No price data | 19% above high estimate (largest discount to high estimate) | 440% above high estimate | No price data |
| Market cap | $15.8M | $1.1B | $149.2B | $1.5B |
| Moat tier | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat | Shallow moat |
| Filings as of | FY2026 | FY2025 | FY2025 | FY2025 |