VOL. XCIV, NO. 247

MOAT TYPE BREAKDOWN

NO ADVICE

Tuesday, December 30, 2025

Moat GlossaryWide Moat Stocks Home My Collections

Demand moat

Data Workflow Lockin Moat

63 companies · 92 segments

A demand-side moat where a product becomes the system of record or the daily workflow layer. Integrations, user habits, and accumulated data create 'gravity' that makes switching painful, risky, and time-consuming.

Domain

Demand moat

Advantages

5 strengths

Disadvantages

5 tradeoffs

Coverage

63 companies · 92 segments

Advantages

  • High switching costs: migration requires data mapping, re-integrations, retraining, and parallel run.
  • Retention durability: once embedded, churn is rare and usually tied to major org events.
  • Pricing power: vendors can raise prices moderately because replacement cost is high.
  • Expansion inside the account: adjacent modules sell naturally once the core workflow is adopted.
  • Lower CAC over time: strong retention and expansions improve LTV and allow efficient growth.

Disadvantages

  • Buyer backlash: heavy lock-in can trigger procurement pressure, multi-vendor strategies, or replacement projects.
  • Integration brittleness: upstream API changes and downstream dependencies can create support burden.
  • Complacency risk: if product quality slips, customers may endure short-term pain but plan a full rip-and-replace later.
  • Standardization shifts: new standards, open formats, or better interoperability can reduce lock-in.
  • Security and reliability risk: a breach or major outage can override switching pain and force churn.

Why it exists

  • The product sits on the critical path (daily operations, approvals, revenue, compliance, or production).
  • Data accumulates over time (history, configurations, rules, permissions, audit trails) and is hard to migrate cleanly.
  • Integrations connect many upstream/downstream systems, creating brittle dependencies.
  • Teams build tacit workflow knowledge (playbooks, shortcuts, dashboards) that is not captured in documentation.
  • Operational risk: switching risks downtime, errors, or lost institutional memory.

Where it shows up

  • Systems of record (ERP, CRM, HRIS, accounting, ticketing, EHR)
  • Data platforms (warehouses, BI layers, ETL/ELT, observability)
  • Developer workflows (CI/CD, monitoring, incident management, API gateways)
  • Collaboration and knowledge tools (docs, wikis, project management) when deeply embedded
  • Vertical SaaS with regulatory or audit requirements (fintech, healthcare, logistics)
  • Communication layers tied to work execution (contact centers, dispatch, routing)

Durability drivers

  • Deep and broad integrations (native connectors, stable APIs, strong partner ecosystem)
  • Data depth and uniqueness (long history, rich metadata, audit trails, custom objects)
  • Configuration and workflow complexity (rules engines, permissions, automations, approvals)
  • High reliability and trust (uptime, security posture, strong admin tooling)
  • Strong switching playbooks against competitors (migration tools, onboarding, customer success)

Common red flags

  • Low switching costs masked by short contracts and easy export/import
  • Customers keep the product only because of contracts, not because it is operationally central
  • High support burden from fragile integrations and frequent outages
  • Weak expansions: customers do not add seats/modules after initial deployment
  • Strong competitors offer painless migration and interoperability, shrinking the lock-in gap

How to evaluate

Key questions

  • Is the product a system of record, or just an accessory layer that can be swapped easily?
  • How hard is migration in practice (data, integrations, retraining, compliance, downtime)?
  • Can the customer run two systems in parallel, or is switching inherently disruptive?
  • Is the value in the data itself, the workflow configuration, or the integrations?
  • Do customers expand usage over time (modules, seats, workloads), or stagnate?

Metrics & signals

  • Net revenue retention (NRR) and logo churn (should be strong if lock-in is real)
  • Implementation and migration timelines (weeks vs quarters) and reliance on services
  • Integration count per customer and % of customers using key integrations
  • Depth of configuration (custom fields, automations, rules, workflows, permissions)
  • Usage frequency (daily active usage, workflow-critical events per account)
  • Price realization on renewals (ability to raise price without churn)
  • Incidence of rip-and-replace events (competitive losses, reasons for churn)

Examples & patterns

Patterns

  • System-of-record platforms with multi-year data history and complex permissions
  • Workflow tools with many integrations that become the “hub” for operations
  • Observability and incident tooling embedded in engineering response loops
  • Vertical SaaS where audit trails and compliance documentation make migration risky

Notes

  • True lock-in comes from operational risk and configuration complexity, not from dark patterns or contract tricks.
  • The best signal is behavior: customers complain about price, but still renew and expand because switching is too risky.

Examples in the moat database

Curation & Accuracy

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.