Moat Claims
01Each claim combines strength (1–5), durability (fragile / medium / durable), and confidence (1–5). The average across claims sets the segment base.
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 384 companies
| VRSN | TechnologySoftware - Infrastructure | 100 | $27.1B | 88.4% | 67.9% | 50% | Monopoly | Legal | Concession License | Strong | ||||||
| 2330 | TechnologySemiconductors | 100 | $1.9T | 61.9% | 53.3% | 47% | Quasi-Monopoly | Supply | Capex Knowhow Scale | Strong | ||||||
| V | FinancialsFinancial - Credit Services | 99 | $629.2B | 81.3% | 61.1% | 51.7% | Oligopoly | Network | Two Sided Network | Strong | ||||||
| NVDA | TechnologySemiconductors | 98 | $5.4T | 74.2% | 64% | 63% | Quasi-Monopoly | Network | De Facto Standard | Strong | ||||||
| VRTX | HealthcareBiotechnology | 98 | $107.9B | 86.3% | 39% | 35.4% | Quasi-Monopoly | Legal | IP Choke Point | Strong | ||||||
| CNR | IndustrialsRailroads | 98 | $72.6B | 41.9% | 37.8% | 27.2% | Duopoly | Legal | Permits Rights Of Way | Moderate | ||||||
| AUTO | Communication ServicesInternet Content & Information | 97 | $4.8B | 75.5% | 62.2% | 47.1% | Quasi-Monopoly | Network | Two Sided Network | Strong | ||||||
| 4661 | ConsumerLeisure | 95 | $22.6B | 38.7% | 23.9% | 17.3% | Duopoly | Legal | Content Rights Currency | Strong | ||||||
| 0388.HK | FinancialsFinancial - Data & Stock Exchanges | 94 | $64.9B | 85.1% | 78.6% | 65.4% | Monopoly | Legal | Concession License | Moderate | ||||||
| ENB | EnergyOil & Gas Midstream | 93 | $122.7B | 32.6% | 16.5% | 9.7% | Oligopoly | Legal | Permits Rights Of Way | Moderate | ||||||
| ICE | FinancialsFinancial - Data & Stock Exchanges | 91 | $84.4B | 69% | 40.8% | 30% | Oligopoly | Network | Two Sided Network | Strong | ||||||
| AAPL | TechnologyConsumer Electronics | 91 | $4.6T | 47.9% | 32.6% | 27.2% | Oligopoly | Network | Ecosystem Complements | Strong | ||||||
| TCL | IndustrialsIndustrial - Infrastructure Operations | 91 | $32.3B | 45.6% | 41.9% | 7.1% | Quasi-Monopoly | Legal | Concession License | Moderate | ||||||
| REA | Communication ServicesInternet Content & Information | 91 | $14.1B | 54.2% | 44.2% | 31.6% | Duopoly | Network | Two Sided Network | Strong | ||||||
| BR | IndustrialsInformation Technology Services | 91 | $17B | 31.3% | 17.1% | 15% | Quasi-Monopoly | Legal | Regulated Standards Pipe | Moderate | ||||||
| AIR | IndustrialsAerospace & Defense | 91 | $159B | 14.7% | 6.7% | 6.9% | Duopoly | Supply | Capex Knowhow Scale | Moderate | ||||||
| 6268 | IndustrialsIndustrial - Machinery | 90 | $4.1B | 31.7% | 7.4% | 5.8% | Quasi-Monopoly | Supply | Learning Curve Yield | Strong | ||||||
| SNPS | TechnologySoftware - Infrastructure | 90 | $97.3B | 73.5% | 8.4% | 8.9% | Oligopoly | Demand | Switching Costs General | Moderate | ||||||
| META | Communication ServicesInternet Content & Information | 89 | $1.5T | 81.9% | 41.2% | 32.8% | Oligopoly | Network | Two Sided Network | Moderate | ||||||
| RMV | Real EstateInternet Content & Information | 88 | $4.3B | 99.3% | 66.8% | 50.3% | Quasi-Monopoly | Network | Two Sided Network | Strong | ||||||
| GAW | ConsumerLeisure | 87 | $9B | 71.8% | 41.9% | 31.1% | Oligopoly | Legal | IP Choke Point | Strong | ||||||
| MO | ConsumerTobacco | 87 | $120.6B | 67.8% | 50.7% | 36.9% | Oligopoly | Demand | Brand Trust | Strong | ||||||
| AMZN | ConsumerSpecialty Retail | 87 | $2.9T | 50.6% | 11.5% | 12.2% | Oligopoly | Supply | Capex Knowhow Scale | Moderate | ||||||
| GOOGL | Communication ServicesInternet Content & Information | 86 | $4.4T | 60.4% | 32.7% | 37.9% | Quasi-Monopoly | Network | Data Network Effects | Strong | ||||||
| WST | HealthcareMedical - Instruments & Supplies | 86 | $22B | 36.2% | 20.7% | 16.9% | Quasi-Monopoly | Demand | Design In Qualification | Moderate | ||||||
| 8035 | TechnologySemiconductors | 86 | $150.3B | 45.3% | 25.6% | 23.5% | Quasi-Monopoly | Demand | Design In Qualification | Strong | ||||||
| FTNT | TechnologySoftware - Infrastructure | 85 | $94B | 80.7% | 31.1% | 27.5% | Oligopoly | Demand | Suite Bundling | Moderate | ||||||
| LLY | HealthcareDrug Manufacturers - General | 85 | $1T | 83.5% | 45.9% | 35% | Oligopoly | Legal | IP Choke Point | Strong | ||||||
| CFR | ConsumerLuxury Goods | 84 | $123.7B | 65.6% | 20.9% | 14.2% | Oligopoly | Demand | Brand Trust | Strong | ||||||
| LYV | Communication ServicesEntertainment | 84 | $39B | 44.7% | 5.5% | 0.3% | Oligopoly | Supply | Physical Network Density | Moderate |
10 sectors represented
67 score 80 or higher
212 companies tagged
Median across companies with margin data
How the Score Works
The moat score estimates how durable a company's competitive advantages appear to be. It is built from curated moat claims attached to each business segment, 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 average across claims sets the segment base.
Bonus when a segment is defended by multiple distinct moat domains — network effects, switching costs, regulated rails, data lock-in, 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 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. A conglomerate with one strong segment and several weaker ones can still land mid-ranking.
Treat the moat score as a starting point for research, not a verdict.
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-level moat claims. The score considers claim strength, durability, confidence, moat diversity, market structure, pricing power, market share, and industry concentration, then weights segments by revenue or operating profit where available.
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.
High quality stocks ranked by profitability, margins, free cash flow quality, durability, solvency, and accounting...
Stock rankingUndervalued stocks from the Liquid North Atlantic universe, ranked with a multi-measure value system and quality...
Stock rankingDividend stocks ranked by payout yield, payout sustainability, dividend growth, quality, balance-sheet safety, risk...
Stock rankingDefensive stocks ranked by low volatility, low beta, intermediate momentum, durable profitability, balance sheet...
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.