VOL. XCIV, NO. 247
★ WIDE MOAT STOCKS & COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES ★
PRICE: 0 CENTS
Wednesday, December 31, 2025
Cboe Global Markets, Inc.
CBOE · Cboe BZX
Weighted average of segment moat scores, combining moat strength, durability, confidence, market structure, pricing power, and market share.
Request update
Spot something outdated? Send a quick note and source so we can refresh this profile.
Overview
Cboe Global Markets is an exchange operator providing trading and clearing services in listed options, equities (U.S., Canada, Europe, Australia), futures, and institutional FX, along with recurring access and market data monetization (Data Vantage). Its deepest moat is in proprietary benchmark derivatives: SPX options are exclusive to Cboe under an S&P license running through 2033, and the VIX franchise benefits from trademarked IP and benchmark status. Liquidity-driven network effects and scale reinforce these franchises, while a common low-latency technology stack (Cboe Titanium) supports execution quality and operating leverage across venues. Key risks are regulatory changes to market structure and market data economics, index-provider licensing terms, and competitive fee/rebate pressure in cash equities and FX.
Primary segment
Options
Market structure
Oligopoly
Market share
29%-32% (reported)
HHI: —
Coverage
5 segments · 8 tags
Updated 2025-12-31
Segments
Options
U.S. listed options exchanges (multi-listed + proprietary index options)
Revenue
60.8%
Structure
Oligopoly
Pricing
moderate
Share
29%-32% (reported)
Peers
North American Equities
U.S. and Canadian equities trading venues (exchanges + ATS) and related market data/access services
Revenue
18.5%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
weak
Share
9%-11% (reported)
Peers
Europe and Asia Pacific
European equities & listed derivatives trading venues and clearing (plus Australia and Japan equities venues)
Revenue
10.6%
Structure
Oligopoly
Pricing
moderate
Share
24%-27% (reported)
Peers
Futures
Volatility and niche index futures (notably VIX futures) plus related market data/access
Revenue
6.3%
Structure
Quasi-Monopoly
Pricing
strong
Share
—
Peers
Global FX
Institutional spot FX electronic trading platforms (ECN) and NDF execution (SEF)
Revenue
3.7%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
weak
Share
17%-21% (reported)
Peers
Moat Claims
Options
U.S. listed options exchanges (multi-listed + proprietary index options)
Revenue share based on FY2024 net revenue by segment (revenues less cost of revenues): Options $1,259.3M of total $2,072.4M (FY2024 Form 10-K).
Contractual Exclusivity
Legal
Contractual Exclusivity
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Exclusive index-provider licensing (notably SPX) makes key flagship options products exclusive to Cboe and economically important.
Erosion risks
- Index provider renegotiation or non-renewal at expiry
- Regulatory constraints on index options (e.g., 0DTE rule changes)
- Volume migration to futures/OTC substitutes in some hedging use-cases
Leading indicators
- SPX options ADV and revenue per contract
- Renewal/extension announcements for index licensing
- Competitor launches of close substitutes (ETF options, futures products)
Counterarguments
- Customers can hedge with CME equity index futures/options or ETF options without SPX
- If licensing terms worsen, economics (not just volumes) could compress materially
Two Sided Network
Network
Two Sided Network
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Deep liquidity in benchmark index options attracts both customer flow and liquidity providers; scale feeds tighter markets and reinforces share.
Erosion risks
- Fee/rebate competition shifting liquidity across options venues
- Market maker concentration and reduced competition in liquidity provision
- Regulatory changes to retail routing/PFOF impacting displayed liquidity
Leading indicators
- Cboe options market share
- Bid/ask spreads and depth in flagship options (SPX, VIX options)
- Number/concentration of active market makers
Counterarguments
- Multi-homing is common; order flow is price-sensitive and can move quickly
- Exchange economics are constrained by competitive rebates and routing incentives
Capex Knowhow Scale
Supply
Capex Knowhow Scale
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
A common, scalable low-latency trading platform supports reliability and feature velocity across Cboe venues.
Erosion risks
- Peers match latency/feature parity through sustained capex
- Technology incidents/outages harm trust and volumes
Leading indicators
- Exchange uptime/incident frequency
- Technology and capex spend vs peers
- Latency/throughput published metrics (where available)
Counterarguments
- Low-latency trading tech is widely available; differentiation may be narrow
- Price incentives can outweigh tech differences for many participants
North American Equities
U.S. and Canadian equities trading venues (exchanges + ATS) and related market data/access services
Revenue share based on FY2024 net revenue by segment: North American Equities $383.8M of total $2,072.4M (FY2024 Form 10-K).
Regulated Standards Pipe
Legal
Regulated Standards Pipe
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Operating a national securities exchange requires registration and ongoing oversight as an SRO, creating barriers to entry and compliance-based friction.
Erosion risks
- Market-structure reform reduces exchange economics (fees, rebates, data)
- Share shift to off-exchange/wholesalers and ATS venues
- New exchange entrants (or incumbents) aggressively price for share
Leading indicators
- SEC/NMS rule changes impacting exchange economics
- U.S. equities exchange share and off-exchange share trend
- Market data revenue per user / redistribution changes
Counterarguments
- Regulatory licenses do not guarantee pricing power; competition is intense and economics can be regulated
- Off-exchange venues can take volume without being exchanges
Switching Costs General
Demand
Switching Costs General
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Connectivity, access ports, and data subscriptions embed into trading operations; switching venues can require re-integration, certification, and workflow updates.
Erosion risks
- Standardized connectivity and vendor tools reduce integration friction
- Routing technology makes venue choice more automated and price-driven
Leading indicators
- Access and capacity fee growth vs volumes
- Customer port counts / connectivity product adoption (where disclosed)
Counterarguments
- Participants already connect to many venues; incremental switching costs may be modest
- Order routing can redirect flow quickly based on economics
Capex Knowhow Scale
Supply
Capex Knowhow Scale
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
A shared, high-performance platform can reduce unit costs and enable faster rollout of new order types and risk controls.
Erosion risks
- Peers outspend on technology/colocation
- Technology failures damage trust and routing preference
Leading indicators
- Incident/outage history
- Technology spend and platform migrations
Counterarguments
- Execution quality differences can be arbitraged away; fees/rebates dominate routing decisions
- High fixed-cost tech can become a disadvantage if share declines
Europe and Asia Pacific
European equities & listed derivatives trading venues and clearing (plus Australia and Japan equities venues)
Revenue share based on FY2024 net revenue by segment: Europe and Asia Pacific $220.2M of total $2,072.4M (FY2024 Form 10-K).
Regulated Standards Pipe
Legal
Regulated Standards Pipe
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Operating regulated European trading venues (MTF/RM/APA) under recognized status creates licensing and compliance barriers that protect incumbents.
Erosion risks
- Regulatory changes to market structure (MiFID/MiFIR) impacting venue economics
- Competitive fee cuts by incumbent exchanges and MTFs
- National preference and local liquidity pools limiting share gains
Leading indicators
- European equities market share trend
- Regulatory developments on consolidated tape, best execution, dark trading caps
Counterarguments
- Licensing is necessary but not sufficient; liquidity can still shift with pricing and routing
- Large incumbents can bundle listing, data, and trading to defend share
Clearing Settlement
Network
Clearing Settlement
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Clearing infrastructure benefits from member connectivity, risk controls, and regulatory approvals; once integrated, clearing tends to be sticky.
Erosion risks
- Competing CCP pricing and interoperability pressures
- Regulatory changes to clearing mandates or margin models
Leading indicators
- Cleared volumes and net fees per settlement
- New products cleared (e.g., SFT clearing adoption)
Counterarguments
- Clearing is competitive with large incumbents; margin efficiencies can shift flows
- Interoperability and regulation can reduce stickiness over time
Two Sided Network
Network
Two Sided Network
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Higher market share can reflect liquidity/network advantages in a venue market where flow tends to consolidate to the deepest books.
Erosion risks
- Aggressive competitor pricing and incentives
- Routing changes by brokers due to best-execution and cost constraints
Leading indicators
- Market share and net capture (bps)
- Share in lit vs dark/auction venues
Counterarguments
- Brokers can multi-home and shift routing rapidly based on economics
- Liquidity can fragment during volatility or due to market-structure changes
Futures
Volatility and niche index futures (notably VIX futures) plus related market data/access
Revenue share based on FY2024 net revenue by segment, with former Digital segment net revenue combined into Futures (Digital is included in Futures starting 1Q 2025 per company disclosure). FY2024: Futures $133.5M and Digital ($2.0)M of total $2,072.4M (FY2024 Form 10-K).
IP Choke Point
Legal
IP Choke Point
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Ownership of proprietary indices and trademarks (e.g., VIX) supports exclusive branded volatility products and related licensing/market data monetization.
Erosion risks
- Competing volatility benchmarks and products (e.g., alternative indices)
- Regulatory intervention affecting volatility derivatives market structure
- Sustained low-volatility regimes reducing demand and liquidity
Leading indicators
- VIX futures ADV and open interest
- Share of volume in VIX-related products vs alternatives
- Index licensing and data revenue tied to volatility products
Counterarguments
- Investors can trade substitutes (variance swaps, other volatility indices, options strategies)
- IP protects the VIX brand, but not the broader volatility-hedging need
De Facto Standard
Network
De Facto Standard
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
VIX functions as a widely referenced market volatility benchmark, supporting persistent demand for VIX-linked hedging and trading tools.
Erosion risks
- Benchmark relevance declines if market participants shift to alternative measures
- Methodology changes or perception issues reduce trust
Leading indicators
- Media/market adoption metrics (VIX references, VIX-linked product launches)
- Stability and transparency of methodology governance
Counterarguments
- VIX is a benchmark, but liquidity and economics can still cycle strongly with volatility regimes
- Other volatility indicators (realized vol, other indices) can substitute in some workflows
Global FX
Institutional spot FX electronic trading platforms (ECN) and NDF execution (SEF)
Revenue share based on FY2024 net revenue by segment: Global FX $77.6M of total $2,072.4M (FY2024 Form 10-K).
Two Sided Network
Network
Two Sided Network
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Liquidity-driven two-sided network effects matter in FX ECNs: deeper pools attract both takers and makers, improving execution quality and reinforcing participation.
Erosion risks
- Multi-homing and ease of switching across FX venues
- Price competition compressing net capture
- Concentration of liquidity provision among a small set of banks/market makers
Leading indicators
- ADNV on Cboe FX platform
- Net capture rate per $1M traded
- Share of volume in core FX pairs vs competitors
Counterarguments
- FX is highly fragmented; liquidity can move quickly with pricing/incentives
- Large banks can internalize flow or route to preferred venues
Switching Costs General
Demand
Switching Costs General
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Operational integration (connectivity, risk controls, reporting) creates some friction, but institutional FX participants typically maintain multi-venue connectivity.
Erosion risks
- Connectivity/aggregation vendors lower switching friction
- Regulatory or client mandates promote best-price routing across venues
Leading indicators
- Customer concentration and churn (if disclosed)
- Connectivity product adoption and renewal rates
Counterarguments
- Most customers already connect to multiple FX venues; incremental switching costs are low
- Execution quality and pricing dominate venue selection
Evidence
SPX options ... are exclusive to Cboe and contribute substantially to our volumes.
Supports an exclusive product moat tied to a critical benchmark index options complex.
exclusive right to offer U.S.-listed options on the S&P 500 Index ... through December 31, 2033.
A time-bounded, contract-based exclusivity moat (renewal risk exists).
SPX options are used in many different trading strategies by customers with different goals.
Broad use across strategies implies diverse participation, supporting liquidity-driven network effects.
Cboe Titanium ... has high capacity and low latency.
Operational/technology capability can be a cost and execution-quality advantage, but is investable by peers.
Options exchanges had total market share of 30.9% for the third quarter of 2025.
Directly states Cboe consolidated options exchange market share for the quarter.
Showing 5 of 18 sources.
Risks & Indicators
Erosion risks
- Index provider renegotiation or non-renewal at expiry
- Regulatory constraints on index options (e.g., 0DTE rule changes)
- Volume migration to futures/OTC substitutes in some hedging use-cases
- Fee/rebate competition shifting liquidity across options venues
- Market maker concentration and reduced competition in liquidity provision
- Regulatory changes to retail routing/PFOF impacting displayed liquidity
Leading indicators
- SPX options ADV and revenue per contract
- Renewal/extension announcements for index licensing
- Competitor launches of close substitutes (ETF options, futures products)
- Cboe options market share
- Bid/ask spreads and depth in flagship options (SPX, VIX options)
- Number/concentration of active market makers
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.