VOL. XCIV, NO. 247
★ WIDE MOAT STOCKS & COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES ★
PRICE: 0 CENTS
Wednesday, December 31, 2025
Automatic Data Processing, Inc.
ADP · NASDAQ
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Spot something outdated?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
ADP is a global payroll and human capital management (HCM) provider with two primary reportable segments: Employer Services (payroll/HCM software and outsourcing) and PEO Services (ADP TotalSource co-employment model). Its strongest moats come from high switching costs and workflow/data lock-in in payroll/HCM, compliance and regulated money-movement capabilities, and large-scale distribution and operations. The PEO business adds regulatory and certification barriers and bundled HR/benefits offerings, with insurance risk-management capabilities supporting outcomes. Key risks include increased competition from modern HCM suites and SMB payroll SaaS, pricing pressure, and regulatory and cyber and security execution risk.
Primary segment
Employer Services
Market structure
Oligopoly
Market share
16.7% (reported)
HHI: —
Coverage
2 segments · 6 tags
Updated 2025-12-30
Segments
Employer Services
Payroll processing and cloud HCM (HR, time, talent, tax, benefits) software and outsourcing
Revenue
67.5%
Structure
Oligopoly
Pricing
moderate
Share
16.7% (reported)
Peers
Professional Employer Organization (PEO) Services
U.S. PEO (co-employment) services: bundled HR outsourcing, payroll, benefits, and risk management for SMB
Revenue
32.5%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
weak
Share
—
Peers
Moat Claims
Employer Services
Payroll processing and cloud HCM (HR, time, talent, tax, benefits) software and outsourcing
Revenue share computed from FY2025 segment revenues in ADP FY2025 Form 10-K (Employer Services $13,883.1m of $20,560.9m total). Operating profit share computed from FY2025 segment earnings before income taxes excluding corporate and Other (Employer Services $5,008.5m of $5,959.0m total across reportable segments).
Switching Costs General
Demand
Switching Costs General
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
Payroll and HCM is embedded into pay cycles, tax filings, benefits, and time/workforce workflows; high retention indicates meaningful friction to switch.
Erosion risks
- Enterprise migrations to integrated ERP and HCM suites
- SMB churn to low-cost payroll SaaS
- Implementation tooling and partners lowering switching friction
Leading indicators
- Employer Services client revenue retention
- New business bookings growth
- Pays per control growth
Counterarguments
- Large enterprises can rationalize vendors and migrate to end-to-end suites (e.g., Workday or Oracle) despite switching friction
- SMBs may prioritize price and ease of use over historical switching costs
Compliance Advantage
Legal
Compliance Advantage
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 4/5 · 2 evidence
Handling payroll tax filings and regulated money movement builds compliance capability and trust, raising the bar for smaller entrants.
Erosion risks
- Regulatory simplification reducing compliance differentiation
- High-profile compliance or security incident harming trust
- Open banking and payment rails commoditizing money movement
Leading indicators
- Regulatory findings and fines
- Service uptime and payment incident rates
- Client adoption of compliance add-ons (e.g., tax and compliance modules)
Counterarguments
- Large competitors can match compliance capabilities with sufficient investment
- Some customers can internalize compliance using modern ERP and payroll modules
Scale Economies Unit Cost
Supply
Scale Economies Unit Cost
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Scale supports spreading R&D, security, compliance, and service delivery costs over a large installed base and enables broad go-to-market reach.
Erosion risks
- Cloud-native competitors narrowing cost gaps
- Partner and channel disintermediation
- Commoditization of core payroll processing
Leading indicators
- R&D spend and product release velocity
- Sales productivity and partner-sourced bookings
- Service delivery cost per client and employee
Counterarguments
- Software scale advantages can be competed away if switching costs fall and best-of-breed wins
- Large-suite vendors may achieve comparable scale across broader applications
Float Prepayment
Financial
Float Prepayment
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 2 evidence
ADP earns interest on client funds held prior to remittance; scale and regulated processes support the model, but earnings are rate-sensitive and constrained by risk management and regulation.
Erosion risks
- Falling interest rates reducing float profitability
- Regulatory constraints on investment strategy or client-funds handling
- Operational failures in money movement
Leading indicators
- Client funds interest revenue
- Average client funds balances
- Regulatory changes affecting client-fund investment rules
Counterarguments
- Float is not exclusive; other scaled providers can also earn client-fund interest
- This is more an earnings tailwind than a direct driver of customer lock-in
Professional Employer Organization (PEO) Services
U.S. PEO (co-employment) services: bundled HR outsourcing, payroll, benefits, and risk management for SMB
Revenue share computed from FY2025 segment revenues in ADP FY2025 Form 10-K (PEO Services $6,690.4m of $20,560.9m total). Operating profit share computed from FY2025 segment earnings before income taxes excluding corporate and Other (PEO Services $950.5m of $5,959.0m total across reportable segments). ADP's PEO business is branded ADP TotalSource and operates exclusively in the U.S.
Regulated Standards Pipe
Legal
Regulated Standards Pipe
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 4/5 · 2 evidence
Certified PEO status and state licensing requirements add regulatory overhead and credibility barriers vs smaller or less-capitalized operators.
Erosion risks
- Regulatory changes to co-employment frameworks
- Increased compliance burden raising costs faster than pricing
- Certification losing signaling value if broadly adopted
Leading indicators
- Regulatory changes affecting PEO licensing and certification
- Legal and claims trends tied to co-employer status
- Worksite employee growth and retention
Counterarguments
- Many competitors can obtain required licenses and certifications; barriers are meaningful but not prohibitive
- Clients may choose regional and specialized PEOs for service differentiation
Suite Bundling
Demand
Suite Bundling
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
One-stop bundled HR administration (payroll, tax, compliance, benefits, workers comp) reduces point-solution adoption for SMBs lacking internal HR capacity.
Erosion risks
- SMB adoption of modular HR SaaS reducing need for PEO bundling
- Aggressive competitor pricing in PEO
- Benefit plan design becoming less differentiated
Leading indicators
- Net adds and retention of worksite employees
- Attach rates for benefits and risk products
- Churn trends by client size and industry
Counterarguments
- Bundling is common across PEOs; differentiation may be more about service quality than breadth
- Some clients can revert to in-house HR and SaaS stack if economics worsen
Underwriting Risk Pooling
Financial
Underwriting Risk Pooling
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Workers compensation risk management and insurance and reinsurance structures create specialized capabilities and scale benefits in underwriting and claims economics.
Erosion risks
- Adverse workers comp claim severity or frequency
- Higher reinsurance pricing or reduced capacity
- Regulatory changes to workers comp or unemployment insurance
Leading indicators
- Workers comp loss trends
- Reinsurance pricing and renewal terms
- Stop-loss usage and reserve development
Counterarguments
- Insurance and risk programs can be matched by other scaled PEOs or carriers
- This advantage is sensitive to underwriting cycle and claim volatility
Evidence
ES client revenue retention was 92.1% and client satisfaction scores reaching new record highs.
High retention is consistent with switching costs and operational dependency on ADP payroll and HCM systems.
We prepare and file federal, state and local payroll tax returns.
Demonstrates ADP role in complex payroll tax compliance (a core differentiator for many employers).
The ADP Trust Bank is subject to oversight and regulation by the OCC.
Regulated money-movement infrastructure supports trust and reliability for payroll and tax remittance services.
1.1M+ clients worldwide and 42M+ workers paid
Large client and worker base supports unit-cost advantages and sustained investment capacity vs smaller vendors.
Interest on funds held for clients $1,189.1 million and average client funds balances $37.6 billion.
Shows the magnitude of client-funds interest revenue and the scale of balances that create float economics.
Showing 5 of 11 sources.
Risks & Indicators
Erosion risks
- Enterprise migrations to integrated ERP and HCM suites
- SMB churn to low-cost payroll SaaS
- Implementation tooling and partners lowering switching friction
- Regulatory simplification reducing compliance differentiation
- High-profile compliance or security incident harming trust
- Open banking and payment rails commoditizing money movement
Leading indicators
- Employer Services client revenue retention
- New business bookings growth
- Pays per control growth
- Client satisfaction and NPS trends
- Regulatory findings and fines
- Service uptime and payment incident rates
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.