VOL. XCIV, NO. 247
★ WIDE MOAT STOCKS & COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES ★
PRICE: 0 CENTS
Thursday, January 8, 2026
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc.
IBKR · 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Spot something outdated?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
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. operates a single reportable segment: electronic brokerage, providing multi-asset execution, clearing, custody, and financing globally. The moat is primarily operational: proprietary, highly automated systems support low execution costs and scalable risk management. Network-style advantages come from broad venue and currency connectivity and API or FIX integration that embeds IBKR into sophisticated trading workflows. Key pressures are intense price competition (commissions and interest rates), technology catch-up by large incumbents, and regulatory or operational shocks.
Primary segment
Electronic brokerage
Market structure
Competitive
Market share
—
HHI: —
Coverage
1 segments · 8 tags
Updated 2026-01-06
Segments
Electronic brokerage
Multi-asset electronic brokerage, clearing, custody, and financing (self-directed and institutional)
Revenue
100%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
weak
Share
—
Peers
Moat Claims
Electronic brokerage
Multi-asset electronic brokerage, clearing, custody, and financing (self-directed and institutional)
IBKR reports a single reportable segment ("electronic brokerage") in its FY2024 Form 10-K.
Operational Excellence
Supply
Operational Excellence
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Decades of internally developed, highly automated trading, risk, and back-office systems support low execution costs and scalable global operations.
Erosion risks
- Technology commoditization and rivals closing the automation gap (including AI-enabled tooling)
- Major outage, cyber incident, or operational failure harming trust and triggering client churn
- Third-party dependency failures (exchanges, banks, crypto partners) disrupting service
Leading indicators
- Cost-to-serve (expense per account / per DART) trend
- Platform uptime and incident frequency
- Commission and financing-rate competitiveness vs peers
Counterarguments
- Large incumbents (e.g., Schwab, Fidelity, major banks) also operate at scale and can invest heavily in technology
- Some clients are price and UX sensitive and can switch brokers with relatively low friction via account transfer rails
Interoperability Hub
Network
Interoperability Hub
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
A unified, multi-currency platform connecting clients to 160+ exchanges and market centers and multiple connectivity options (desktop, mobile, API, FIX) acts as a hub for global multi-asset trading workflows.
Erosion risks
- Competitors expand global access and narrow breadth differentiation
- Regulatory and geopolitical restrictions reduce cross-border product and market access
- Standardized connectivity (FIX and OMS) reduces switching friction for institutional multi-broker setups
Leading indicators
- Number of markets and currencies supported
- Growth in non-U.S. client accounts and client equity
- Net new product and venue integrations and customer adoption
Counterarguments
- Institutional clients often multi-home across brokers and prime brokers, limiting lock-in to any single connectivity hub
- For many retail users, breadth of global access is not the primary driver vs UX, content, or brand
Compliance Advantage
Legal
Compliance Advantage
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Regulatory complexity increases barriers to entry; IBKR highlights building automated and human compliance infrastructure that can create an advantage versus new entrants and support multi-jurisdiction operations.
Erosion risks
- Regulatory changes or enforcement actions increasing costs and constraining products and markets
- Large incumbents can match compliance investment; advantage mainly affects smaller entrants
- Compliance failures (AML and KYC, market abuse surveillance) can cause fines and reputational damage
Leading indicators
- Regulatory examinations, enforcement actions, and remediation disclosures
- Compliance expense and headcount trend
- Speed of approvals and launches in new jurisdictions or products
Counterarguments
- Major brokers and banks already maintain large compliance organizations and can outspend smaller firms
- Regulation may act as an industry-wide tax rather than a durable differentiator among large incumbents
Data Workflow Lockin
Demand
Data Workflow Lockin
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
API and FIX integrations and multi-asset trading and risk workflows can embed IBKR into client toolchains (especially for sophisticated and institutional users), raising switching and migration friction.
Erosion risks
- Standardized OMS and EMS layers make broker connectivity more interchangeable
- Client preference for multi-broker redundancy reduces dependence on any single broker
- Competitive API parity and developer tooling improvements elsewhere
Leading indicators
- Institutional client equity share and net new institutional accounts
- API and FIX connectivity adoption (where disclosed) and third-party integrations
- Churn rates among high-activity clients
Counterarguments
- Retail clients can often transfer accounts and re-create configurations with limited effort
- Many institutional clients already multi-home across prime brokers, limiting true lock-in
Evidence
"Our proprietary technology is the key to our success... permitting us to have one of the lowest cost structures in the industry."
Directly supports an operations and technology-driven cost and efficiency advantage.
"we employ proprietary technology to automate... account opening and funding... smart order routing... compliance... [and] risk management..."
Automation reduces unit servicing costs and supports consistent execution and risk controls at scale.
"We offer our customers access to... products... traded on more than 160 electronic exchanges and market centers in 36 countries and in 28 currencies..."
Supports breadth of venue and currency connectivity and the value of a single integrated platform.
"customers receive electronic access... via... our... API... or... "FIX" connectivity... [for] seamless integration..."
Supports hub-like integration into institutional systems via standard connectivity.
"Increased regulation also creates increased barriers to entry... [which] provides us with a possible advantage over potential newcomers..."
Explicitly frames regulation as a barrier and IBKR infrastructure as a potential advantage.
Showing 5 of 7 sources.
Risks & Indicators
Erosion risks
- Technology commoditization and rivals closing the automation gap (including AI-enabled tooling)
- Major outage, cyber incident, or operational failure harming trust and triggering client churn
- Third-party dependency failures (exchanges, banks, crypto partners) disrupting service
- Competitors expand global access and narrow breadth differentiation
- Regulatory and geopolitical restrictions reduce cross-border product and market access
- Standardized connectivity (FIX and OMS) reduces switching friction for institutional multi-broker setups
Leading indicators
- Cost-to-serve (expense per account / per DART) trend
- Platform uptime and incident frequency
- Commission and financing-rate competitiveness vs peers
- Number of markets and currencies supported
- Growth in non-U.S. client accounts and client equity
- Net new product and venue integrations and customer adoption
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.