VOL. XCIV, NO. 247

★ WIDE MOAT STOCKS & COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES ★

PRICE: 0 CENTS

Wednesday, January 7, 2026

Games Workshop Group PLC

GAW · London Stock Exchange

Market cap (USD)$6.2B
SectorConsumer
IndustryLeisure
CountryGB
Data as of
Moat score
87/ 100

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Spot something outdated?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

Games Workshop is a vertically integrated owner of the Warhammer miniature-wargaming IP. It reports two segments: Core (design, manufacture and sale of miniatures and related products, including Warhammer+) and Licensing (royalties from external partners). The core moat is built on proprietary IP and brand-driven fandom reinforced by a global retail onboarding network, owned community/content channels, and end-to-end control of manufacturing and distribution. Licensing monetizes the same IP with high margins, but is structurally volatile and dependent on partner execution.

Primary segment

Core (Warhammer miniatures & hobby products)

Market structure

Oligopoly

Market share

HHI:

Coverage

2 segments · 6 tags

Updated 2026-01-05

Segments

Core (Warhammer miniatures & hobby products)

Tabletop miniature wargaming and related hobby products

Revenue

91.5%

Structure

Oligopoly

Pricing

strong

Share

Peers

HASMAT7832.T

Licensing (Warhammer IP)

Licensing of Warhammer intellectual property to external partners (video games, merchandise, TV/film)

Revenue

8.5%

Structure

Monopoly

Pricing

moderate

Share

Peers

DISHASNTDOY

Moat Claims

Core (Warhammer miniatures & hobby products)

Tabletop miniature wargaming and related hobby products

FY2025 core revenue GBP 565.0m and core operating profit GBP 211.8m. Core revenue by channel (actual rates): Trade GBP 345.7m, Retail GBP 128.7m, Online GBP 90.6m.

Oligopoly

IP Choke Point

Legal

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Games Workshop owns and controls the Warhammer settings and associated imagery, enabling uniquely differentiated products and giving it exclusive rights to monetize the IP in miniatures.

Erosion risks

  • IP dilution from inconsistent world-building or over-extension
  • IP infringement (counterfeits, recasts, unauthorized 3D prints)
  • Backlash to rules/monetization harming the brand and sales

Leading indicators

  • New setting/lore output and release cadence
  • Visible IP enforcement actions and outcomes
  • Fan sentiment and community engagement metrics

Counterarguments

  • Hobbyists can shift time/spend to other franchises or game systems
  • 3D printing and proxies can reduce demand for official miniatures

Brand Trust

Demand

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Warhammer is presented as the key consumer-facing brand, supporting premium positioning and continued customer acquisition/retention in a discretionary hobby category.

Erosion risks

  • Perceived decline in miniature quality or rules quality
  • Community backlash (edition changes, pricing, balance issues)
  • Macro-driven reduction in discretionary spend

Leading indicators

  • Average selling price and mix (starter sets vs premium kits)
  • Customer acquisition indicators (store traffic, beginner product uptake)
  • Repeat purchase rates and engagement with new releases

Counterarguments

  • Brand premium can weaken if competitors offer comparable quality/value
  • New entrants/indies can siphon enthusiasts seeking alternative rulesets

Ecosystem Complements

Network

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

A broad hobby ecosystem (content, community, and multiple complementary sales channels) reinforces engagement and supports long-term customer value.

Erosion risks

  • Platform shifts toward third-party communities reducing GW reach
  • Community fragmentation across competing systems
  • Rules/content missteps reducing engagement

Leading indicators

  • Engagement trends on owned channels and social platforms
  • Event attendance and store community activity
  • Webstore conversion and repeat rates

Counterarguments

  • Community can migrate to other systems if GW releases disappoint
  • Digital communities are portable; complements can be replicated by rivals

Service Field Network

Supply

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

A global retail footprint functions as a customer acquisition and onboarding engine, with staff-led hobby guidance and community building (difficult to replicate at scale).

Erosion risks

  • Rising retail labor and rent costs
  • Shift to online-first purchasing reducing store ROI
  • Execution risk in rapid store expansion

Leading indicators

  • Store count and like-for-like store sales
  • New customer conversion metrics (starter product attach)
  • Store-level profitability and closure rates

Counterarguments

  • Specialty hobby stores and online influencers can replicate onboarding without GW stores
  • Retail network is costly and could become a disadvantage in downturns

Supply Chain Control

Supply

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Vertical integration (design -> manufacture -> distribution -> sell) supports product quality control, release cadence, and supply reliability for a large SKU catalog.

Erosion risks

  • Manufacturing capacity constraints or disruptions
  • Input cost inflation (materials, energy, labor)
  • Logistics disruptions impacting global fulfillment

Leading indicators

  • Backorder rates and delivery lead times
  • Capex and capacity expansion milestones
  • Gross margin stability through cost cycles

Counterarguments

  • Vertical integration increases fixed-cost leverage and operational risk
  • Some competitors can outsource flexibly and respond faster to trends

Installed Base Consumables

Demand

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Once customers are invested in miniatures, repeated purchases of paints, tools, and related hobby supplies increase lifetime value and reinforce switching costs within the hobby.

Erosion risks

  • Third-party paints/tools substitute the Citadel range
  • Lower engagement leading to fewer repeat purchases
  • Counterfeit/parallel-channel consumables

Leading indicators

  • Paint/tool attach rates per miniature sale
  • Repeat purchase frequency and basket composition
  • Growth of third-party consumables ecosystems

Counterarguments

  • Consumables are easier to substitute than miniatures; customers can multi-source
  • Inexperienced hobbyists may buy minimal accessories and churn out

Licensing (Warhammer IP)

Licensing of Warhammer intellectual property to external partners (video games, merchandise, TV/film)

FY2025 licensing revenue GBP 52.5m and licensing operating profit GBP 49.5m. Annual report notes 81% of licensing revenue was from PC and console game licences.

Monopoly

IP Choke Point

Legal

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Games Workshop is the sole licensor of Warhammer IP, making access to the Warhammer universe a controlled input for licensees.

Erosion risks

  • Over-licensing harming brand equity and cannibalizing core
  • Partner failures producing low-quality products
  • Regulatory/contract disputes with licensees

Leading indicators

  • Quality and reception of licensed releases
  • Mix of licensing revenue concentration (e.g., reliance on a few games)
  • Pipeline of new licensing deals and renewals

Counterarguments

  • Licensing success depends heavily on third-party execution
  • Other IP ecosystems compete aggressively for publisher/studio attention

Content Rights Currency

Legal

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Depth of lore and settings creates a reusable content asset that can be adapted into games and media, increasing the attractiveness of Warhammer as a licensing property.

Erosion risks

  • Audience fatigue or oversaturation of licensed content
  • Narrative/brand inconsistency across partners
  • Competitors with larger media engines outspending on awareness

Leading indicators

  • Announced slate of games/media projects and delivery timelines
  • Engagement/awareness lift in new geographies
  • Royalty rate and minimum guarantee terms on new contracts

Counterarguments

  • Warhammer may remain niche versus mass-market entertainment IP
  • High-profile projects can be delayed or cancelled, limiting monetization

Long Term Contracts

Demand

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Multi-year licensing contracts with minimum guaranteed payments provide some revenue visibility, though outcomes still depend on partner delivery and sales performance.

Erosion risks

  • Lumpy, hit-driven royalties (volatile beyond minimum guarantees)
  • Renegotiation risk and unfavorable renewal terms
  • Revenue concentration in a small number of licensees/franchises

Leading indicators

  • Licensing receivables and cash received vs reported income
  • Share of licensing revenue from top titles
  • Frequency of new contract signings and renewals

Counterarguments

  • Minimum guarantees can be small relative to upside; true economics remain hit-driven
  • Partners can prioritize other franchises, reducing output and revenue

Evidence

sec_filing
Games Workshop Group PLC Annual Report (52 weeks ended 1 June 2025) - Strategy and objectives

This gives us control over the imagery and styles we use, and ownership of the IP.

Direct statement of IP ownership/control that underpins the core product moat.

sec_filing
Games Workshop Group PLC Annual Report (52 weeks ended 1 June 2025) - Our brands

Our key consumer facing brand is 'Warhammer'.

Direct positioning of Warhammer as the central consumer brand.

sec_filing
Games Workshop Group PLC Annual Report (52 weeks ended 1 June 2025) - Strategy and objectives

We sell our miniatures for a price that we believe represents the investment in their quality.

Supports the premium brand/quality thesis that enables pricing power.

sec_filing
Games Workshop Group PLC Annual Report (52 weeks ended 1 June 2025) - Strategy and objectives (community/content)

Through warhammer-community.com ... we reach hundreds of thousands of people every day.

Shows owned media/community reach that supports ecosystem engagement.

sec_filing
Games Workshop Group PLC Annual Report (52 weeks ended 1 June 2025) - Strategy and objectives (channels)

Our long-term goal is to have all three channels (Retail, Trade and Online) growing in harmony.

Positions multi-channel distribution as a deliberate, reinforcing system.

Showing 5 of 14 sources.

Risks & Indicators

Erosion risks

  • IP dilution from inconsistent world-building or over-extension
  • IP infringement (counterfeits, recasts, unauthorized 3D prints)
  • Backlash to rules/monetization harming the brand and sales
  • Perceived decline in miniature quality or rules quality
  • Community backlash (edition changes, pricing, balance issues)
  • Macro-driven reduction in discretionary spend

Leading indicators

  • New setting/lore output and release cadence
  • Visible IP enforcement actions and outcomes
  • Fan sentiment and community engagement metrics
  • Average selling price and mix (starter sets vs premium kits)
  • Customer acquisition indicators (store traffic, beginner product uptake)
  • Repeat purchase rates and engagement with new releases
Created 2026-01-05
Updated 2026-01-05

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.