VOL. XCIV, NO. 247
★ WIDE MOAT STOCKS & COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES ★
PRICE: 0 CENTS
Sunday, December 28, 2025
GSK plc
GSK · London Stock Exchange
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Spot something outdated?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
GSK is a global biopharma company focused on Vaccines, Specialty Medicines (notably HIV and oncology), and General Medicines (notably respiratory). Its moats are primarily time-bounded IP/regulatory exclusivity on key products, plus high-barrier manufacturing scale and quality/compliance execution-especially in vaccines and biologics. In respiratory inhalers, device-specific training creates modest switching friction, though payer formularies can still force switches. Key risks are patent cliffs, reimbursement pressure, and pipeline execution.
Primary segment
Specialty Medicines
Market structure
Oligopoly
Market share
—
HHI: —
Coverage
3 segments · 5 tags
Updated 2025-12-28
Segments
Vaccines
Human vaccines
Revenue
29.1%
Structure
Oligopoly
Pricing
moderate
Share
—
Peers
Specialty Medicines
Branded specialty pharmaceuticals (HIV, oncology, immunology/respiratory)
Revenue
37.6%
Structure
Oligopoly
Pricing
strong
Share
—
Peers
General Medicines
Respiratory inhaled therapies and established branded medicines
Revenue
33.2%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
moderate
Share
—
Peers
Moat Claims
Vaccines
Human vaccines
Capex Knowhow Scale
Supply
Capex Knowhow Scale
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
Large, regulated vaccines manufacturing footprint with specialized biologics know-how and long validation cycles.
Erosion risks
- Peers and CDMOs expanding biologics/vaccine capacity
- Process standardization lowering manufacturing barriers
- Supply chain disruptions reducing reliability advantage
Leading indicators
- Vaccine doses delivered and OTIF performance
- Regulatory inspection outcomes (warning letters/critical findings)
- Major product recalls or supply interruptions
Counterarguments
- Large vaccine competitors can match capex and talent
- Contract manufacturing can partially substitute for in-house scale
Compliance Advantage
Legal
Compliance Advantage
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
High compliance/quality track record lowers supply disruption risk and supports tender/customer confidence.
Erosion risks
- Quality lapses leading to warning letters/consent decrees
- Tightening regulatory requirements increasing costs
- Serialization/counterfeit risks in some markets
Leading indicators
- FDA/EMA inspection results and remediation timelines
- Batch rejection/recall frequency
- Publicly disclosed manufacturing deviations
Counterarguments
- Compliance is a baseline requirement for all large pharma
- A single adverse inspection can quickly damage perceived advantage
IP Choke Point
Legal
IP Choke Point
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
Patents/exclusivities on key vaccines support differentiation for newer adult vaccines but erode over time.
Erosion risks
- Patent expiry and biosimilar/next-gen vaccine entry
- Competitors improving safety/efficacy profiles
- Government tender pricing reducing returns despite IP
Leading indicators
- Competitor trial readouts in overlapping indications
- Patent challenges or adverse litigation outcomes
- ACIP/EMA label and recommendation changes
Counterarguments
- Vaccine IP does not guarantee sustained share if rivals launch better products
- Tender-driven markets can commoditize even differentiated vaccines
Specialty Medicines
Branded specialty pharmaceuticals (HIV, oncology, immunology/respiratory)
IP Choke Point
Legal
IP Choke Point
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
Core earnings power is tied to patent-protected specialty assets (notably HIV) that restrict generic competition during exclusivity windows.
Erosion risks
- Loss of exclusivity and generic/biosimilar entry
- Price controls and reimbursement tightening
- Clinical differentiation narrowing vs competitors
Leading indicators
- Patent litigation outcomes and generic filing activity
- Payer/formulary moves against branded regimens
- Share shifts in HIV and oncology classes
Counterarguments
- Even under patent, payers can steer volume to alternatives
- Pipeline execution is required to replace revenue at LOE
Capex Knowhow Scale
Supply
Capex Knowhow Scale
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
Large R&D investment and clinical development capabilities support a sustained pipeline, but outcomes are uncertain and peers have similar scale.
Erosion risks
- R&D productivity declines (failed trials, delays)
- Loss of key scientific talent
- Regulatory setbacks in priority programs
Leading indicators
- Phase III/registration readouts vs guidance
- Approvals per year and label breadth
- Pipeline mix shifting toward higher-value specialty categories
Counterarguments
- Scale does not guarantee drug discovery success
- Competitors can outspend in key modalities or indications
General Medicines
Respiratory inhaled therapies and established branded medicines
Switching Costs General
Demand
Switching Costs General
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Device-specific inhaler technique and patient training create friction in switching, but payers can still mandate changes.
Erosion risks
- Payers forcing non-medical switches
- Generic and me-too inhalers reducing differentiation
- Digital training and standardization reducing technique barriers
Leading indicators
- Formulary exclusions/rebates impacting share
- Generic entry timing and substitution rates
- Adherence and persistence metrics for inhaled therapies
Counterarguments
- Switching costs are modest; clinicians can retrain quickly
- Insurers can override patient/provider preference via formularies
IP Choke Point
Legal
IP Choke Point
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
Inhaled combination products retain some patent protection, but many older general medicines face generic competition.
Erosion risks
- Patent expiry and generic/biosimilar entry
- Device patent workarounds by competitors
- Pricing pressure via payer rebates
Leading indicators
- Patent challenges and settlements
- Competitor inhaler launches and generic approvals
- Net price trends (rebate/discount intensity)
Counterarguments
- Even with patents, payers can compress net pricing through rebates
- Competitors can launch therapeutically similar combinations
Evidence
This network of 37 medicines and vaccines manufacturing sites delivered 1.7 billion packs of medicines and 409 million vaccine doses in 2024.
Scale and complexity of global supply/manufacturing is hard to replicate quickly.
In 2024, we had 104 regulatory inspections. We received zero warning letters from the US FDA.
Demonstrates execution capability under strict regulatory oversight.
Arexvy... 2030 (US) 2032 (EU); Shingrix... 2029 (US) 2031 (EU).
Illustrates time-bounded legal protection around major vaccine franchises.
dolutegravir 2031-2034 (US); 2027-2029 (EU).
Example of time-bounded IP protection for a key HIV component.
GBP6.4bn R&D investment in 2024. 71 assets in phase I+ (18 in phase III/registration).
Signals ability to fund and manage a large late-stage portfolio.
Showing 5 of 7 sources.
Risks & Indicators
Erosion risks
- Peers and CDMOs expanding biologics/vaccine capacity
- Process standardization lowering manufacturing barriers
- Supply chain disruptions reducing reliability advantage
- Quality lapses leading to warning letters/consent decrees
- Tightening regulatory requirements increasing costs
- Serialization/counterfeit risks in some markets
Leading indicators
- Vaccine doses delivered and OTIF performance
- Regulatory inspection outcomes (warning letters/critical findings)
- Major product recalls or supply interruptions
- FDA/EMA inspection results and remediation timelines
- Batch rejection/recall frequency
- Publicly disclosed manufacturing deviations
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.