VOL. XCIV, NO. 247

★ WIDE MOAT STOCKS & COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES ★

PRICE: 0 CENTS

Friday, January 2, 2026

Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.

ODFL · The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC

Market cap (USD)$33.4B
SectorIndustrials
IndustryTrucking
CountryUS
Data as of
Moat score
76/ 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Spot something outdated?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

Old Dominion Freight Line is an asset-based North American LTL carrier; most revenue comes from LTL services, with a small contribution from value-added logistics (drayage, brokerage, consulting). The core moat is a dense service-center network that requires sustained capital plus strong operational execution (on-time performance and low claims) supporting a premium service proposition. The domestic LTL market is consolidated among large carriers but remains competitive on price and service; ODFL's advantage is strongest where reliability and network coverage matter. Value-added services mainly benefit from cross-sell into the LTL customer base but compete in more fragmented, lower-moat markets.

Primary segment

LTL Services

Market structure

Oligopoly

Market share

11%-14% (implied)

HHI:

Coverage

2 segments · 5 tags

Updated 2026-01-02

Segments

LTL Services

North American less-than-truckload (LTL) freight transportation

Revenue

99.1%

Structure

Oligopoly

Pricing

moderate

Share

11%-14% (implied)

Peers

ARCBFDXSAIATFII+1

Other Services (Value-added logistics)

North American container drayage, truckload brokerage, and supply chain consulting

Revenue

0.9%

Structure

Competitive

Pricing

weak

Share

Peers

CHRWEXPDJBHTRXO

Moat Claims

LTL Services

North American less-than-truckload (LTL) freight transportation

Revenue share based on FY2024 revenue composition disclosed as 'LTL services' vs 'Other services' in the FY2024 10-K; company reports one operating/reportable segment for SEC reporting.

Oligopoly

Physical Network Density

Supply

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Dense terminal/service-center footprint supports fast, reliable pickup/delivery plus linehaul with lower rehandling.

Erosion risks

  • Competitors expand/optimize terminal networks
  • Rising real-estate and construction costs for new service centers
  • Operational disruptions (weather, IT outages)

Leading indicators

  • Service-center count / door capacity
  • On-time service % and transit-time performance
  • Cargo claims ratio

Counterarguments

  • Other national LTL carriers also have dense terminal networks
  • Network advantages can narrow if peers add capacity in key lanes

Capex Knowhow Scale

Supply

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

LTL requires sustained capital to build and maintain terminals and fleet; high fixed-cost structure favors established operators through cycles.

Erosion risks

  • Downcycles reduce utilization and pressure margins
  • Rivals with strong balance sheets can match capex
  • Shift toward brokered/asset-light freight reduces asset-based pricing leverage

Leading indicators

  • Capex and service-center expansion pace
  • Operating ratio through the cycle
  • Volume growth vs industry (shipments/day, tons/day)

Counterarguments

  • Large incumbents (peers) can fund comparable capex
  • Scale alone does not ensure superior returns without execution

Operational Excellence

Supply

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Execution discipline (network management, scheduling, training, tech) shows up in best-in-class service metrics and cost control.

Erosion risks

  • Labor availability (drivers/technicians) and wage inflation
  • Service degradation if volume swings overwhelm network balance
  • Higher accident/claims costs or safety issues

Leading indicators

  • Operating ratio
  • On-time % and cargo claims ratio
  • Employee turnover / hiring metrics

Counterarguments

  • Competitors can close the service gap with investment and process improvements
  • When capacity is loose, service differentiation may matter less than price

Reputation Reviews

Demand

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Premium reputation anchored in consistent on-time, low-claims service supports retention and pricing discipline.

Erosion risks

  • Service failures or network disruptions damage reputation
  • Aggressive competitor discounting reduces willingness to pay for premium service
  • Large customers multi-source carriers, limiting loyalty

Leading indicators

  • Yield / revenue per hundredweight (ex-fuel) trend
  • Claims ratio trend
  • Customer retention / bid win-rate

Counterarguments

  • Procurement can be price-driven; reputation premium is cyclical
  • Shippers often split lanes across multiple carriers

Switching Costs General

Demand

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Carrier IT integrations (tracking, documents, rating) create switching friction, but most shippers can multi-carrier through TMS/3PLs.

Erosion risks

  • TMS/3PL platforms standardize integrations across carriers
  • Competitors match digital feature sets
  • EDI/API commoditization reduces differentiation

Leading indicators

  • Digital shipment booking adoption
  • Customer churn / retention metrics
  • EDI/API integration counts

Counterarguments

  • Most shippers can re-route volumes quickly using multi-carrier TMS
  • IT features are increasingly table-stakes in LTL

Other Services (Value-added logistics)

North American container drayage, truckload brokerage, and supply chain consulting

This segment corresponds to 'Other services' revenue category (e.g., container drayage, truckload brokerage, supply chain consulting) disclosed in SEC filings; economically small versus core LTL.

Competitive

Suite Bundling

Demand

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Value-added services can be cross-sold to existing LTL customers as a single logistics vendor, but the underlying markets are highly competitive.

Erosion risks

  • Customers unbundle and use specialized brokers/3PLs
  • Digital freight platforms reduce switching costs
  • Price competition compresses brokerage/drayage margins

Leading indicators

  • Other services revenue growth rate
  • Attach rate of value-added services to LTL accounts

Counterarguments

  • Brokerage and drayage are fragmented and low-moat categories
  • Customers can add/remove brokers quickly with limited switching cost

Procurement Inertia

Demand

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Existing enterprise procurement relationships in LTL may help win adjacent service spend, but contracts can be rebid frequently.

Erosion risks

  • Annual/biannual bid cycles reset share
  • 3PLs consolidate transportation procurement across carriers
  • Service issues spill over from core LTL, hurting cross-sell

Leading indicators

  • Share of wallet within top shipper accounts
  • Win/loss rate in brokerage/drayage bids

Counterarguments

  • Procurement teams multi-source by design and prefer optionality
  • Asset-light competitors can undercut pricing easily

Evidence

sec_filing
Form 10-K for year ended 2024-12-31 (Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.)

261 service centers

Scale of service-center footprint (terminal network density).

sec_filing
Form 10-K for year ended 2024-12-31 (Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.)

minimize freight rehandling

Network design aims to reduce handling cost/damage and improve service reliability.

sec_filing
Form 10-K for year ended 2024-12-31 (Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.)

high fixed costs

Company describes high fixed costs/capital spending requirements that challenge new entrants.

news
Press Release: Old Dominion Freight Line Reports Third Quarter 2025 Earnings Per Diluted Share of $1.28

capital expenditures ... $450 million

Illustrates ongoing investment required to expand/maintain service network, equipment, and IT.

sec_filing
Form 10-K for year ended 2024-12-31 (Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.)

daily basis

Service-center performance is monitored frequently to maintain quality and efficiency.

Showing 5 of 15 sources.

Risks & Indicators

Erosion risks

  • Competitors expand/optimize terminal networks
  • Rising real-estate and construction costs for new service centers
  • Operational disruptions (weather, IT outages)
  • Downcycles reduce utilization and pressure margins
  • Rivals with strong balance sheets can match capex
  • Shift toward brokered/asset-light freight reduces asset-based pricing leverage

Leading indicators

  • Service-center count / door capacity
  • On-time service % and transit-time performance
  • Cargo claims ratio
  • Real-estate/service-center capex
  • Capex and service-center expansion pace
  • Operating ratio through the cycle
Created 2026-01-02
Updated 2026-01-02

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.