VOL. XCIV, NO. 247
★ WIDE MOAT STOCKS & COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES ★
PRICE: 0 CENTS
Nasdaq, Inc.
NDAQ · 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Spot something outdated?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
Nasdaq, Inc. is a global market infrastructure and financial technology company with three reported segments: Market Services, Capital Access Platforms, and Financial Technology. Market Services is protected by regulated exchange licenses and liquidity-driven network effects on its venues, supported by connectivity/colocation offerings. Capital Access Platforms benefits from listing brand and a large Nasdaq index ecosystem (including the Nasdaq-100) that supports recurring licensing and data revenue. Financial Technology is anchored by mission-critical workflows in trading, risk and regulatory reporting (e.g., Calypso and AxiomSL) where switching and compliance costs create stickiness. Key risks include regulatory and competitive pressure on market data and fees, order-flow fragmentation, and intense fintech competition (including in-house builds).
Primary segment
Capital Access Platforms
Market structure
Oligopoly
Market share
80%-84% (reported)
HHI: —
Coverage
3 segments · 7 tags
Updated 2025-12-31
Segments
Market Services
Securities exchange trading, clearing and related market data & access services
Revenue
21.9%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
moderate
Share
—
Peers
Capital Access Platforms
Issuer and investor solutions: listings, index licensing, market data, and investment analytics/workflow platforms
Revenue
42.4%
Structure
Oligopoly
Pricing
moderate
Share
80%-84% (reported)
Peers
Financial Technology
Capital markets, risk, regulatory and market-technology software (SaaS and enterprise platforms)
Revenue
35.6%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
moderate
Share
—
Peers
Moat Claims
Market Services
Securities exchange trading, clearing and related market data & access services
Revenue share derived from 2024 revenues less transaction-based expenses: Market Services net revenues $1,020m of total $4,649m. Segment operating income $597m (FY ended 2024-12-31). Source: Nasdaq FY2024 Form 10-K.
Concession License
Legal
Concession License
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Operating regulated exchanges under SEC-supervised self-regulatory organization (SRO) licenses creates high barriers to entry and makes venues hard to replicate quickly.
Erosion risks
- Regulatory changes to market structure or fee models
- License penalties/sanctions from compliance failures
- Policy shifts that favor alternative trading systems
Leading indicators
- SEC/other regulator enforcement actions or rule changes
- Market Services net revenue trend
- Exchange uptime / major incident frequency
Counterarguments
- Order flow can be fragmented across many venues due to regulation and smart order routing
- New venues can still enter if they obtain approvals and subsidize fees/liquidity
Two Sided Network
Network
Two Sided Network
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Liquidity attracts order flow and market makers; order flow in turn attracts more participants. Nasdaq cites being a leading liquidity venue in U.S. cash equities.
Erosion risks
- Fee compression from aggressive pricing competition
- Shift of volume to off-exchange/OTC venues (dark pools, internalizers)
- Technological latency arms race reducing differentiation
Leading indicators
- U.S. cash equities and options market share
- Average revenue per share/contract in traded products
- Competitor venue launches or rule/fee changes
Counterarguments
- Reg NMS and best-execution routing can weaken venue-level network effects by spreading liquidity
- Liquidity is not exclusive and can move quickly if economics change
Physical Network Density
Supply
Physical Network Density
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Proximity services (colocation/connectivity) and operating resilient exchange infrastructure require capital, know-how, and established data center footprints that are costly to duplicate at scale.
Erosion risks
- Data center/interconnect commoditization
- Regulatory scrutiny of latency advantages and access fairness
- Cloud/edge networking changes lowering barriers for entrants
Leading indicators
- Colocation/connectivity revenue trend
- Capex for core data centers and network upgrades
- Regulatory reviews of market access services
Counterarguments
- Connectivity services are also offered by neutral data centers and competitors
- Physical proximity advantages can be competed away with new builds and technology
Capital Access Platforms
Issuer and investor solutions: listings, index licensing, market data, and investment analytics/workflow platforms
Revenue share derived from 2024 revenues less transaction-based expenses: Capital Access Platforms total revenues $1,972m of total $4,649m. Segment operating income $1,134m (FY ended 2024-12-31). Source: Nasdaq FY2024 Form 10-K.
Brand Trust
Demand
Brand Trust
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Issuer brand and distribution help Nasdaq win listings (especially growth/tech) and support recurring listing-related fees and issuer services attach.
Erosion risks
- IPO market downturn reduces new listings and related fees
- Issuer preference shifts toward NYSE or non-U.S. venues
- Regulatory changes to listing standards or fee structures
Leading indicators
- Eligible IPO win rate and number of IPOs
- Net listings adds and switches
- Annual listing fee and market data subscription trends
Counterarguments
- Nasdaq itself cites NYSE as its primary competitor for large U.S. listings; issuers can and do switch
- Listing decisions can be driven by pricing, sector trends, or market cycles rather than durable brand preference
De Facto Standard
Network
De Facto Standard
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Nasdaq-branded indices (especially the Nasdaq-100 ecosystem) are widely used benchmarks for ETPs, supporting durable licensing and data demand.
Erosion risks
- ETP sponsors switch to alternative index providers (MSCI, S&P, FTSE Russell)
- Benchmark licensing fee pressure as sponsors negotiate
- Regulatory or methodology scrutiny impacting index brand
Leading indicators
- ETP AUM tracking Nasdaq indices
- Net inflows/outflows in Nasdaq index-linked products
- Number of new index products launched with clients
Counterarguments
- Index products can be replicated using alternative benchmarks or custom indices
- Benchmark status can shift with performance and sponsor economics
Benchmark Pricing Power
Financial
Benchmark Pricing Power
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Index and trademark licensing economics (often tied to AUM, issuance, or contracts) can provide pricing leverage in established benchmarks, but is constrained by sponsor choice and competition.
Erosion risks
- Fee compression from client renegotiations
- Growth in low-fee indexing/ETPs pressuring licensing economics
- Rise of 'self-indexing' and custom indices
Leading indicators
- Index revenue growth vs AUM growth
- Average licensing yield (revenue/AUM) trend
- Major client renewals and pricing disclosures
Counterarguments
- Large sponsors can negotiate aggressively or switch benchmarks
- Many indices are substitutable; pricing power may be limited outside flagship products
Financial Technology
Capital markets, risk, regulatory and market-technology software (SaaS and enterprise platforms)
Revenue share derived from 2024 revenues less transaction-based expenses: Financial Technology total revenues $1,655m of total $4,649m. Segment operating income $770m (FY ended 2024-12-31). Source: Nasdaq FY2024 Form 10-K.
Data Workflow Lockin
Demand
Data Workflow Lockin
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Mission-critical platforms embedded in trading, treasury, risk, and post-trade workflows create high switching and integration costs (data models, processes, training, and regulatory validation).
Erosion risks
- Clients standardize on in-house platforms or consolidate vendors
- Cloud-native entrants reduce implementation friction
- Large customers use procurement leverage to force pricing concessions
Leading indicators
- Net revenue retention / ARR growth in FinTech
- Implementation cycle time and go-live success rates
- Customer concentration and renewal rates
Counterarguments
- Large institutions can build internally and avoid vendor lock-in
- Best-of-breed point solutions can displace modules over time
Compliance Advantage
Legal
Compliance Advantage
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Regulatory reporting and surveillance products benefit from continual investment to keep up with changing rules; scale and speed requirements can differentiate incumbent platforms.
Erosion risks
- Regulatory simplification or harmonization reduces reporting complexity
- Supervisors mandate open standards that reduce vendor differentiation
- High-profile compliance failures damage trust
Leading indicators
- Regulatory reporting product wins/losses
- Major regulatory change cycles (Basel/ESG reporting, etc.)
- False positive rates and alert quality metrics in surveillance/AML
Counterarguments
- Large firms can meet compliance needs with in-house tooling and consultants
- Point solutions can match incumbents on narrow regulation-specific workflows
Long Term Contracts
Demand
Long Term Contracts
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
SaaS subscription and support contracts create recurring revenue and multi-period visibility, though renewal pricing can be pressured by competition and customer consolidation.
Erosion risks
- Customers renegotiate down at renewal
- Shift from long-term contracts to usage-based pricing
- Integration complexity slows new bookings
Leading indicators
- ARR and SaaS annualized revenue trends
- Renewal rates and average contract duration
- Backlog / remaining performance obligations trends (if disclosed)
Counterarguments
- Recurring revenue does not guarantee pricing power; competitive bids can reset economics
- Large clients can multi-source or switch if implementations underperform
Evidence
SROs, such as national securities exchanges, are registered with the SEC.
Supports that operating a national securities exchange is permissioned and supervised, not an open-entry market.
Nasdaq currently operates three cash equity, six options markets ... pursuant to The Nasdaq Stock Market's SRO license.
Explicitly describes Nasdaq operating multiple U.S. exchanges under specific SRO licenses.
The Nasdaq Stock Market is the largest single venue of liquidity for trading U.S.-listed cash equities.
Direct statement that Nasdaq concentrates meaningful liquidity, consistent with a two-sided network effect dynamic.
Our combined options market share in 2024 represented the largest share of the U.S. market for multi-listed equity options.
High share in multi-listed options suggests strong liquidity and participant coordination on Nasdaq venues.
We provide colocation services to market participants ... within our data centers.
Shows Nasdaq sells co-location (proximity) services tied to its exchange infrastructure.
Showing 5 of 17 sources.
Risks & Indicators
Erosion risks
- Regulatory changes to market structure or fee models
- License penalties/sanctions from compliance failures
- Policy shifts that favor alternative trading systems
- Fee compression from aggressive pricing competition
- Shift of volume to off-exchange/OTC venues (dark pools, internalizers)
- Technological latency arms race reducing differentiation
Leading indicators
- SEC/other regulator enforcement actions or rule changes
- Market Services net revenue trend
- Exchange uptime / major incident frequency
- U.S. cash equities and options market share
- Average revenue per share/contract in traded products
- Competitor venue launches or rule/fee changes
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.