Moat Claims
01Each claim combines strength (1–5), durability (fragile / medium / durable), and confidence (1–5). The strongest claim sets the base; additional claims can only add diminishing support.
VOL. XCIV, NO. 247
Public companies with durable competitive advantages, ranked and organized by moat type.
This list highlights wide moat stocks and companies with durable competitive advantages. We categorize moats into network effects, switching costs, regulated rails, data lock-in, and physical network density. These advantages are often called economic moats in fundamental analysis.
This is not financial advice.
Showing 1-30 of 398 companies
| VRSN | TechnologyInfrastructure software | 100 | $26.4B | 88.5% | 67.9% | 49.8% | Monopoly | Legal | Concession License | Strong | ||||||
| 2330 | TechnologySemiconductors | 100 | $2T | 64.2% | 56% | 50.4% | Quasi-Monopoly | Supply | Capex Knowhow Scale | Strong | ||||||
| TCL | IndustrialsTransport and logistics | 100 | $28.4B | — | 30% | 9.4% | Quasi-Monopoly | Legal | Concession License | Moderate | ||||||
| AUTO | Communication ServicesInternet platforms | 100 | $5.3B | 75.5% | 62.2% | 47.1% | Quasi-Monopoly | Network | Two Sided Network | Strong | ||||||
| META | Communication ServicesInternet platforms | 100 | $1.9T | 81.7% | 38.1% | 29.8% | Oligopoly | Network | Two Sided Network | Moderate | ||||||
| V | FinancialsPayments and financial technology | 100 | $678B | — | 60.7% | 50.8% | Oligopoly | Network | Two Sided Network | Strong | ||||||
| DXCM | HealthcareMedical devices | 100 | $33.2B | 62.5% | 22.9% | 20.1% | Oligopoly | Demand | Installed Base Consumables | Moderate | ||||||
| CCI | Real EstateReal estate | 100 | $33.1B | 63.2% | 47.7% | 25.8% | Oligopoly | Supply | Physical Network Density | Strong | ||||||
| NVDA | TechnologySemiconductors | 99 | $5.6T | 74.7% | 65.2% | 63.7% | Quasi-Monopoly | Network | De Facto Standard | Strong | ||||||
| UMG | Communication ServicesMedia and entertainment | 99 | $29.2B | — | 15.2% | 2.5% | Oligopoly | Legal | Content Rights Currency | Moderate | ||||||
| MO | ConsumerTobacco | 99 | $115B | 71% | 56% | 36.5% | Oligopoly | Demand | Brand Trust | Strong | ||||||
| VRTX | HealthcarePharmaceuticals | 99 | $127.9B | 86% | 38% | 35% | Quasi-Monopoly | Legal | IP Choke Point | Strong | ||||||
| AWK | UtilitiesUtilities | 98 | $25.9B | — | 36.9% | 21.3% | Monopoly | Legal | Concession License | Moderate | ||||||
| ENB | EnergyEnergy | 98 | $109.4B | 28.2% | 13.8% | 7.3% | Oligopoly | Legal | Permits Rights Of Way | Moderate | ||||||
| 0388.HK | FinancialsExchanges and financial data | 98 | $65.9B | 86% | 74.9% | 62.3% | Monopoly | Legal | Concession License | Moderate | ||||||
| FTNT | TechnologyInfrastructure software | 98 | $114.7B | 80.4% | 32.4% | 28.2% | Oligopoly | Demand | Suite Bundling | Moderate | ||||||
| GAW | ConsumerTravel, lodging and leisure | 97 | $7.4B | 72.5% | 41.7% | 31.2% | Competitive | Legal | IP Choke Point | Strong | ||||||
| RSG | IndustrialsBusiness services | 97 | $65.8B | — | 19.9% | 12.9% | Competitive | Legal | Permits Rights Of Way | Moderate | ||||||
| NOW | TechnologyApplication software | 97 | $142.6B | 74.8% | 11.4% | 11.3% | Oligopoly | Demand | Data Workflow Lockin | Strong | ||||||
| IDXX | HealthcareDiagnostics and life science tools | 97 | $42.2B | 62.5% | 32% | 25% | Oligopoly | Demand | Installed Base Consumables | Strong | ||||||
| CNR | IndustrialsTransport and logistics | 96 | $72.2B | — | 37.5% | 26.9% | Duopoly | Legal | Permits Rights Of Way | Moderate | ||||||
| MNST | ConsumerSoft drinks | 96 | $85.2B | 55.5% | 29.2% | 23.1% | Oligopoly | Supply | Distribution Control | Moderate | ||||||
| REA | Communication ServicesInternet platforms | 96 | $15.8B | 54.2% | 44.2% | 31.6% | Duopoly | Network | Two Sided Network | Strong | ||||||
| CME | FinancialsExchanges and financial data | 96 | $101.1B | 81.9% | 65.1% | 63.1% | Oligopoly | Network | Two Sided Network | Moderate | ||||||
| PGR | FinancialsInsurance | 96 | $127.3B | 26.9% | 16.2% | 12.9% | Oligopoly | Supply | Learning Curve Yield | Moderate | ||||||
| 4661 | ConsumerTravel, lodging and leisure | 96 | $32.9B | 39.2% | 24.6% | 18.8% | Duopoly | Legal | Content Rights Currency | Strong | ||||||
| AAPL | TechnologyConsumer electronics | 95 | $4.9T | 48.7% | 33.2% | 27.6% | Oligopoly | Network | Ecosystem Complements | Strong | ||||||
| MSFT | TechnologyInfrastructure software | 95 | $3.9T | 67.9% | 46.8% | 40.3% | Oligopoly | Demand | Suite Bundling | Strong | ||||||
| RACE | ConsumerAutos and vehicles | 95 | $72.1B | 51.6% | 29.6% | 22.3% | Oligopoly | Demand | Brand Trust | Strong | ||||||
| TDG | IndustrialsAerospace and defense | 94 | $61B | 59.6% | 46% | 21.3% | Competitive | Demand | Design In Qualification | Strong |
10 sectors represented
141 score 80 or higher
129 companies tagged
Median across companies with margin data
Compare moat strength, market structure, pricing power, and segment evidence side by side.
How the Score Works
The moat score estimates how durable a company's competitive advantages appear to be. It is built from curated company-wide and segment moat claims, never from price, valuation, or stock performance. Segment scores are weighted by revenue share (or operating profit, when revenue is unavailable) so the biggest segments shape the company-level number the most.
Multi-moat dominance with durable pricing power.
Strong moat with one or two clear advantages.
Defensible in places, but not dominant.
Thin, fragile, or contested moat.
Bands are guides, not grades: two companies in the same band can have very different risk profiles.
Each claim combines strength (1–5), durability (fragile / medium / durable), and confidence (1–5). The strongest claim sets the base; additional claims can only add diminishing support.
A segment earns a bonus when multiple moat domains defend it, including network effects, switching costs, regulated rails, data lock-in, and physical density.
Monopolies and quasi-monopolies receive the largest bonus, duopolies and oligopolies a smaller one, fully competitive markets none.
Strong pricing power adds the most, moderate and weak add less, none adds nothing. Captures whether a business can raise prices without losing volume.
Higher estimated market share and a higher HHI (industry concentration) each contribute a small, capped bonus so they refine rather than dominate.
A company's score is the weighted average of its evidenced segment scores. Weights come from segment revenue share when available, then fall back to operating profit share, and finally to equal weighting if neither is reported. Segments without sufficient evidence are excluded from the numeric average and reduce the displayed coverage. Records below 90% coverage are labeled partial and sort below rankable records; companies with no weighted evidence remain unscored.
Treat the moat score as a starting point for research, not a verdict.
Free to reuse, commercially too, with a credit link. See the data license.
Moat Scores by <a href="https://www.findmymoat.com/moat-stocks">Find My Moat</a> (as of September 2026)Wide moat stocks are companies with durable competitive advantages that may protect returns on capital from competitors for many years. Common moat sources include network effects, switching costs, cost advantages, regulated rails, data lock-in, and hard-to-replicate physical networks.
Find My Moat uses a 0-100 moat score built from segment and company-level moat claims. The strongest claim sets each segment base and additional claims add diminishing, non-negative support. The score also considers moat diversity, market structure, pricing power, market share, and industry concentration, then weights evidenced segments by revenue or operating profit where available. Records below 90% weighted evidence coverage are labeled partial; records with no weighted coverage are labeled insufficient evidence.
No. The moat score is a research signal about competitive advantage, not a valuation, price target, or buy/sell recommendation. A high-quality company can still be a poor investment if the stock price already discounts too much future success.
Morningstar-style moat ratings usually classify companies as wide, narrow, or none based on expected durability of excess returns. Find My Moat keeps the economic moat concept but uses a numeric, evidence-backed, segment-weighted score so investors can compare companies and inspect the underlying moat claims.
Use the list as a starting point for research. Open individual stock pages to review the segment-level moat evidence, erosion risks, counterarguments, pricing power, market structure, and related companies before doing valuation work.
This directory blends AI‑assisted discovery with human curation. Entries are reviewed, edited, and organized with the goal of expanding coverage and sharpening quality over time. Your feedback helps steer improvements (because no single human can capture everything all at once).
Details change. Pricing, features, and availability may be incomplete or out of date. Treat listings as a starting point and verify on the provider’s site before making decisions. If you spot an error or a gap, send a quick note and I’ll adjust.