VOL. XCIV, NO. 247
★ WIDE MOAT STOCKS & COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES ★
PRICE: 0 CENTS
Wednesday, December 31, 2025
Starbucks Corporation
SBUX · Nasdaq Global Select Market
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Spot something outdated?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
Starbucks operates three reportable segments: North America coffeehouses, International coffeehouses, and Channel Development (branded products and licensing outside stores). The core moat is demand-side (brand trust + habitual repeat purchases supported by Starbucks Card/Rewards and digital convenience) reinforced by a dense physical store network. Operational standards and supply-chain programs (including farmer support centers) help maintain product consistency at scale. Key risks include competitive price pressure (notably in China), labor and occupancy cost inflation, and partner/licensing execution risk in Channel Development.
Primary segment
North America
Market structure
Competitive
Market share
35%-40% (implied)
HHI: —
Coverage
3 segments · 6 tags
Updated 2025-12-31
Segments
North America
Branded coffeehouse retail (company-operated + licensed)
Revenue
73.6%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
moderate
Share
35%-40% (implied)
Peers
International
Branded coffeehouse retail (company-operated + licensed)
Revenue
21%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
moderate
Share
—
Peers
Channel Development
Packaged coffee, tea, and ready-to-drink beverages (CPG + foodservice) and brand licensing
Revenue
5%
Structure
Oligopoly
Pricing
moderate
Share
—
Peers
Moat Claims
North America
Branded coffeehouse retail (company-operated + licensed)
Brand Trust
Demand
Brand Trust
Strength: 5/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
The 'Starbucks Experience' (service + store environment + digital convenience) is positioned as a key driver of loyalty and premium positioning in its most mature segment.
Erosion risks
- Service degradation (wait times, order accuracy)
- Reputation damage (labor disputes, controversy)
- Macro downturn shifts consumers to cheaper options
Leading indicators
- North America comp sales (traffic vs ticket)
- Customer satisfaction / NPS (if disclosed)
- Brand sentiment and social chatter around service
Counterarguments
- Switching costs are low; customers can easily multi-home across coffee options
- Drive-thru specialists can match convenience at lower price points
Habit Default
Demand
Habit Default
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 2 evidence
Stored value (Starbucks Card) + Rewards + Mobile App are explicitly designed to increase visit frequency and make repeat purchasing frictionless (habit reinforcement).
Erosion risks
- Competitors replicate loyalty and mobile ordering
- Lower engagement if promotions are needed to sustain activity
- Regulatory limits on stored value/rewards economics
Leading indicators
- U.S. Rewards 90-day active members
- Mobile Order & Pay usage (if disclosed)
- Stored value card liability and Stars deferral trends
Counterarguments
- Loyalty may be more promotional than structural; engagement can fall if benefits weaken
- Consumers may optimize across multiple reward ecosystems
Physical Network Density
Supply
Physical Network Density
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 5/5 · 2 evidence
Dense store footprint (company-operated + licensed) increases convenience, supports daypart coverage, and keeps the brand top-of-mind in high-traffic locations.
Erosion risks
- Over-saturation and cannibalization
- Lease/occupancy cost inflation
- Store closures reduce convenience advantage
Leading indicators
- Net store count (openings vs closures)
- Transactions per store / throughput
- Drive-thru and delivery mix (where disclosed)
Counterarguments
- Smaller-format and delivery-first models reduce the advantage of dense storefront networks
- Local independents can win on differentiation in specific neighborhoods
Operational Excellence
Supply
Operational Excellence
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Standardized operating model and training aim to deliver consistent service and improve speed/order flow across U.S. company-operated coffeehouses.
Erosion risks
- Labor turnover and training complexity
- Unionization reduces operating flexibility
- Technology outages disrupt order flow
Leading indicators
- Transaction throughput / wait-time metrics (if disclosed)
- Labor hours per transaction and wage inflation
- Employee turnover and staffing levels
Counterarguments
- Processes and tech are imitable; advantage depends on sustained execution quality
Preferential Input Access
Supply
Preferential Input Access
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Long-standing relationships with producers and agronomy support (farmer support centers) are designed to help secure future supply of high-quality coffee and improve yields/quality.
Erosion risks
- Climate change and crop disease reduce yields
- Coffee price volatility and premiums compress margins
- Trade policy and tariffs raise sourcing costs
Leading indicators
- Arabica price and differentials vs C-price
- Supply chain disruptions / tariff actions
- Green coffee availability and logistics performance
Counterarguments
- Coffee is a global commodity; supply programs may reduce risk but not create exclusive access
International
Branded coffeehouse retail (company-operated + licensed)
Brand Trust
Demand
Brand Trust
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Global brand recognition supports entry into new markets and premium positioning, but strength varies by local culture and competitive set.
Erosion risks
- Local competitors win on price and local tastes
- Geopolitical tensions and consumer nationalism
- Brand perception shocks from controversies
Leading indicators
- International comp sales (traffic vs ticket)
- China comp sales and promotional intensity
- Net store growth by region
Counterarguments
- In some markets (notably China), competition is intense and pricing pressure can weaken premium positioning
- Local brands can be more culturally resonant and expand faster via lower-cost formats
Physical Network Density
Supply
Physical Network Density
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
Large international footprint (company-operated + licensed) helps distribution and convenience, but density advantages are market-specific and can be offset by aggressive local expansion by rivals.
Erosion risks
- Competitors outpace Starbucks in new unit growth
- Real estate constraints and rising rents
- Execution risk with licensed partners
Leading indicators
- Store openings/closures by major market (e.g., China, Japan, U.K.)
- Licensed partner performance and compliance issues
- Same-store sales in key countries
Counterarguments
- Rapid local chain growth can quickly dilute Starbucks' relative footprint advantage
- A large licensed base can reduce control over service consistency
Preferential Input Access
Supply
Preferential Input Access
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Producer relationships and farmer support centers (including in China) help Starbucks pursue consistent coffee quality across geographies.
Erosion risks
- Climate and weather shocks in producing countries
- FX and trade restrictions affecting sourcing costs
- Commodity volatility outpaces pricing ability
Leading indicators
- Coffee input cost trends and hedging results
- Tariff/trade policy changes affecting coffee imports
- Supply chain disruption incidents
Counterarguments
- Upstream programs mitigate risk but do not guarantee differentiation versus other global buyers
Channel Development
Packaged coffee, tea, and ready-to-drink beverages (CPG + foodservice) and brand licensing
Brand Trust
Demand
Brand Trust
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
Starbucks brand extends beyond stores into packaged coffee, single-serve, RTD, and foodservice channels, supporting premium positioning in retail aisles.
Erosion risks
- Retailer private label and value brands trade customers down
- Brand dilution if quality/experience doesn't translate to at-home
- Reputational issues spill into retail channels
Leading indicators
- Channel Development net revenue trend
- Royalty and other revenue growth
- Partner product innovation cadence (new SKUs)
Counterarguments
- At-home coffee is crowded and frequently price-promoted; brand alone may not sustain share
Contractual Exclusivity
Legal
Contractual Exclusivity
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
Long-term licensing and distribution partnerships (notably the Global Coffee Alliance with Nestle) provide global reach without Starbucks building a full CPG distribution stack.
Erosion risks
- Partner underperformance or misalignment (execution controlled externally)
- Renegotiation risk at contract milestones
- Regulatory or trade changes affecting cross-border distribution
Leading indicators
- Royalty revenue trend tied to alliance performance
- Deferred revenue related to Nestle prepaid royalty (if tracked)
- Disclosures about partner performance or disputes
Counterarguments
- Distribution is partner-controlled; Starbucks has limited direct control over shelf execution
- CPG category power often sits with retailers and large distributors, not brand licensors
Scope Economies
Supply
Scope Economies
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
The brand and product development engine can be leveraged across stores, RTD, single-serve, and packaged formats, improving ROI on innovation and marketing relative to single-channel players.
Erosion risks
- Execution complexity across many formats and partners
- Innovation misfires in new categories
- Margin dilution if growth skews to lower-margin formats
Leading indicators
- Mix shift within Channel Development
- New product launch success rates
- Partner expansion announcements
Counterarguments
- Large CPG incumbents may still outspend and out-distribute Starbucks-branded products
Evidence
The Starbucks Experience is built upon...thereby building a high degree of customer loyalty.
Management explicitly frames experience-led differentiation as a loyalty driver.
...designed to...increase the frequency of store visits...through the...Starbucks Rewards loyalty program...
Company describes the program as a mechanism to drive repeat visits.
Starbucks Rewards loyalty program 90-day active members in the U.S. totaled 34.6 million...
Scale of active Rewards membership supports the habit/retention mechanism.
Total 18,311 (North America stores, as of September 28, 2025).
Large regional footprint underpins convenience and distribution.
...typically located in high-traffic, high-visibility locations.
Store siting strategy supports demand capture and brand presence.
Showing 5 of 15 sources.
Risks & Indicators
Erosion risks
- Service degradation (wait times, order accuracy)
- Reputation damage (labor disputes, controversy)
- Macro downturn shifts consumers to cheaper options
- Competitors replicate loyalty and mobile ordering
- Lower engagement if promotions are needed to sustain activity
- Regulatory limits on stored value/rewards economics
Leading indicators
- North America comp sales (traffic vs ticket)
- Customer satisfaction / NPS (if disclosed)
- Brand sentiment and social chatter around service
- U.S. Rewards 90-day active members
- Mobile Order & Pay usage (if disclosed)
- Stored value card liability and Stars deferral trends
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.