VOL. XCIV, NO. 247

★ WIDE MOAT STOCKS & COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES ★

PRICE: 0 CENTS

Thursday, January 8, 2026

Tesla, Inc.

TSLA · NASDAQ

Market cap (USD)$1.5T
SectorConsumer
IndustryAuto - Manufacturers
CountryUS
Data as of
Moat score
75/ 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Spot something outdated?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

Tesla is primarily an electric-vehicle OEM, with adjacent energy storage and charging/service businesses. In vehicles, its strongest moat mechanisms are in-house software and over-the-air updates plus the use of fleet data to train and improve driver-assist capabilities, supported by large-scale manufacturing and battery R&D. In services, the Supercharger network's density in U.S. DC fast charging creates convenience and a strong distribution advantage, though opening the network and industry standardization can reduce exclusivity. In energy storage, Tesla is a leading BESS integrator with scale and cross-product engineering reuse, but faces intense price competition and regional policy risk.

Primary segment

Automotive (vehicles + software + leasing + regulatory credits)

Market structure

Competitive

Market share

56.7% (reported)

HHI:

Coverage

3 segments · 5 tags

Updated 2026-01-05

Segments

Automotive (vehicles + software + leasing + regulatory credits)

Battery-electric passenger vehicles (BEV) and connected vehicle software

Revenue

78.9%

Structure

Competitive

Pricing

moderate

Share

56.7% (reported)

Peers

1211.HK7203.TFGM+2

Services and Other (Supercharging + after-sales + used vehicles + insurance)

Public DC fast charging network operation and EV after-sales services

Revenue

10.8%

Structure

Quasi-Monopoly

Pricing

moderate

Share

60.4% (reported)

Peers

BLNKCHPTEVGO

Energy Generation and Storage (Megapack + Powerwall + solar)

Battery energy storage systems (BESS) integration and residential storage

Revenue

10.3%

Structure

Oligopoly

Pricing

moderate

Share

39% (reported)

Peers

1211.HK1766.HK300274.SZ6594.T+1

Moat Claims

Automotive (vehicles + software + leasing + regulatory credits)

Battery-electric passenger vehicles (BEV) and connected vehicle software

Revenue share computed from Tesla FY2024 10-K revenue disaggregation table: Automotive sales + regulatory credits + automotive leasing (72,480 + 2,763 + 1,827 = 77,070) divided by total revenue 97,690 (all $m). Source: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000162828025003063/tsla-20241231.htm

Competitive

Data Network Effects

Network

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Fleet-scale real-world driving data feeds neural-network training for Autopilot/FSD, enabling a faster iteration loop than smaller fleets.

Erosion risks

  • Regulatory limits or slow approvals for higher autonomy levels
  • Competitors narrowing the autonomy performance gap via partnerships or simulation
  • Privacy or data-collection constraints

Leading indicators

  • Regulatory approvals for expanded autonomy capabilities
  • Safety/disengagement metrics and recall/investigation outcomes
  • FSD adoption rate and churn

Counterarguments

  • Simulation and synthetic data can reduce reliance on real-world fleet data
  • Well-capitalized OEMs/tech firms can buy compute and hire talent quickly

Capex Knowhow Scale

Supply

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Large in-house engineering base plus ongoing investment in battery technology, manufacturing processes, and AI compute infrastructure.

Erosion risks

  • Underutilized factory/compute capacity during demand downturns
  • Supplier innovations commoditizing battery and power electronics
  • Incentives enabling rapid scale-up by rivals

Leading indicators

  • Automotive gross margin ex-credits trend
  • Factory utilization and unit cost trajectory
  • Battery cell cost per kWh and new platform ramp progress

Counterarguments

  • Incumbent OEMs already have enormous scale and can close cost gaps
  • Battery tech diffuses quickly through suppliers and industry learning

Brand Trust

Demand

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Brand built on performance, styling, safety narrative and a mission-driven identity; supports consideration and repeat demand despite limited traditional advertising.

Erosion risks

  • Brand polarization / reputational shocks
  • Quality issues, recalls, or safety controversies
  • EV feature convergence and price-led competition

Leading indicators

  • Net promoter score / brand sentiment measures
  • Repeat purchase rate and referral rates
  • Warranty/recall frequency and customer satisfaction

Counterarguments

  • As EVs commoditize, brand may matter less than price and availability
  • Frequent price cuts can signal weak pricing power and dilute premium perception

Services and Other (Supercharging + after-sales + used vehicles + insurance)

Public DC fast charging network operation and EV after-sales services

Revenue share computed from Tesla FY2024 10-K revenue disaggregation table: Services and other (10,534) divided by total revenue 97,690 (all $m). Services and other includes paid Supercharging, used vehicles, maintenance/collision, parts, insurance and merchandise. Source: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000162828025003063/tsla-20241231.htm

Quasi-Monopoly

Physical Network Density

Supply

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Dense Supercharger network reduces range anxiety and increases convenience; scale and placement along routes/cities support higher utilization and reliability.

Erosion risks

  • Opening the network to non-Tesla vehicles reduces exclusivity as a Tesla-only differentiator
  • Public funding accelerates competing network build-outs
  • Uptime/reliability issues can quickly damage perceived advantage

Leading indicators

  • U.S. DC fast port share and absolute stall growth
  • Supercharger uptime metrics and customer satisfaction
  • NACS/J3400 adoption pace and access terms for other OEMs

Counterarguments

  • Charging can be commoditized; routing apps can direct drivers to any available charger
  • Competitors can replicate coverage with enough capital and public subsidies

Service Field Network

Supply

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Company-owned service centers and Mobile Service help support fleet maintenance and can tighten feedback loops vs dealer-based models.

Erosion risks

  • Service bottlenecks and long wait times
  • Right-to-repair regulation increasing third-party options
  • Independent EV repair ecosystem scaling

Leading indicators

  • Service appointment lead times
  • Warranty cost per vehicle and repeat repair rates
  • Customer satisfaction scores for service interactions

Counterarguments

  • Service networks are not unique; other OEMs and independents can scale
  • Dealer networks already provide broad geographic coverage for incumbents

Switching Costs General

Demand

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Integrated in-app/OTA upgrades and an integrated charging experience create some lock-in for existing owners.

Erosion risks

  • Standards and roaming reduce ecosystem lock-in
  • Subscription fatigue and price sensitivity
  • Features become available across competitors

Leading indicators

  • Subscription attach rate and churn
  • Repeat purchase rate for Tesla owners
  • Usage of Tesla app and feature adoption

Counterarguments

  • Most consumers choose vehicles by price/features at purchase, not ecosystem lock-in
  • Standardization (e.g., NACS/J3400) reduces proprietary advantage

Energy Generation and Storage (Megapack + Powerwall + solar)

Battery energy storage systems (BESS) integration and residential storage

Revenue share computed from Tesla FY2024 10-K revenue disaggregation table: Energy generation and storage sales + leasing (9,564 + 522 = 10,086) divided by total revenue 97,690 (all $m). Source: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000162828025003063/tsla-20241231.htm

Oligopoly

Scope Economies

Supply

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Engineering and component reuse across vehicle and storage products (plus modular design) improves manufacturing efficiency and time-to-scale.

Erosion risks

  • Competitors also leveraging EV battery scale and standardized components
  • Supply chain disruptions for cells and power electronics
  • Rapid cost-downs by Chinese integrators compressing margins

Leading indicators

  • Megapack/Powerwall production capacity and deployments (GWh)
  • Energy segment gross margin trend
  • Lead times and backlog/booking cadence

Counterarguments

  • BESS integration can standardize; component reuse is not unique
  • Utility buyers can multi-source and force price competition

Data Workflow Lockin

Demand

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Control/dispatch software integrated into customer operations can raise switching costs once deployed at scale.

Erosion risks

  • Interoperable standards enabling third-party EMS/SCADA integration
  • Utilities preferring vendor-agnostic control layers
  • Cybersecurity incidents damaging trust

Leading indicators

  • Attach rate of Tesla energy software offerings
  • Renewals/expansions for existing storage customers
  • Interoperability certifications and partner ecosystem growth

Counterarguments

  • Many customers decouple hardware from control software via third-party platforms
  • Procurement can mandate open interfaces, reducing lock-in

Scale Economies Unit Cost

Supply

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

High shipment share implies scale advantages in procurement, manufacturing throughput, and learning curves, supporting cost competitiveness.

Erosion risks

  • Oversupply and aggressive pricing by Chinese competitors
  • Tariffs/trade policy shifts affecting cost structures
  • Project execution and delivery delays

Leading indicators

  • Wood Mackenzie/other ranking movement year over year
  • Average selling price and gross margin trend for energy storage
  • Manufacturing yield and on-time delivery rates

Counterarguments

  • Scale can shift quickly if competitors expand capacity faster
  • Cost advantages can be competed away via commoditized components

Evidence

sec_filing
Tesla Form 10-K (FY 2024) - Self-Driving Development and Artificial Intelligence

...field data captured by our vehicles ... train and improve these neural networks for real-world performance.

Direct linkage between fleet field data and autonomy model training.

sec_filing
Tesla Form 10-K (FY 2024) - Battery and Powertrain

...developed a new proprietary lithium-ion battery cell and improved manufacturing processes.

Supports proprietary battery R&D and manufacturing-process knowhow.

sec_filing
Tesla Form 10-K (FY 2024) - AI investments

...deployment of Cortex, our training cluster at Gigafactory Texas...

Evidence of continued capex in proprietary AI training infrastructure.

sec_filing
Tesla Form 10-K (FY 2024) - Overview

...mission ... vertically integrated business model and focus on user experience differentiate us...

Tesla frames differentiation around mission and integrated user experience (inputs to brand preference).

sec_filing
Tesla Form 10-K (FY 2024) - Product positioning

We emphasize performance ... styling and the safety of our users...

Company positioning emphasizes attributes that support brand trust and product differentiation.

Showing 5 of 17 sources.

Risks & Indicators

Erosion risks

  • Regulatory limits or slow approvals for higher autonomy levels
  • Competitors narrowing the autonomy performance gap via partnerships or simulation
  • Privacy or data-collection constraints
  • Underutilized factory/compute capacity during demand downturns
  • Supplier innovations commoditizing battery and power electronics
  • Incentives enabling rapid scale-up by rivals

Leading indicators

  • Regulatory approvals for expanded autonomy capabilities
  • Safety/disengagement metrics and recall/investigation outcomes
  • FSD adoption rate and churn
  • Automotive gross margin ex-credits trend
  • Factory utilization and unit cost trajectory
  • Battery cell cost per kWh and new platform ramp progress
Created 2026-01-05
Updated 2026-01-05

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.