VOL. XCIV, NO. 247
★ MOAT STOCKS & COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES ★
PRICE: 0 CENTS
Friday, December 26, 2025
The Trade Desk, Inc.
TTD · 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Spot something outdated?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
The Trade Desk, Inc. is an independent, buy-side demand-side platform (DSP) for programmatic advertising across channels such as video/CTV, display, audio, and digital-out-of-home. It reports a single operating segment and earns revenue largely via platform fees tied to client media spend, plus data and other value-added services. The moat is driven by deep integrations across hundreds of supply and data partners (ecosystem hub), workflow switching costs for agencies using its tools/APIs, and scaled data/AI optimization. UID2 and related identity initiatives may reinforce open-internet addressability, but the benefits are non-exclusive and competition from closed platforms remains a central risk.
Primary segment
Advertising Technology Platform (DSP)
Market structure
Competitive
Market share
6%-10% (implied)
HHI: —
Coverage
1 segments · 6 tags
Updated 2025-12-26
Segments
Advertising Technology Platform (DSP)
Demand-side platforms (DSP) for programmatic advertising (open internet)
Revenue
100%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
moderate
Share
6%-10% (implied)
Peers
Moat Claims
Advertising Technology Platform (DSP)
Demand-side platforms (DSP) for programmatic advertising (open internet)
The company reports a single operating segment; revenue is primarily platform fees based on a percentage of client spend, plus data and other value-added services.
Interoperability Hub
Network
Interoperability Hub
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
Broad integrations across inventory sources (exchanges/publishers/SSPs) and third-party data vendors make the platform a hub; deep partner connectivity and integration effort raise switching and entry barriers.
Erosion risks
- Inventory consolidation or preferential access by vertically integrated platforms
- Walled gardens limiting programmatic access to their inventory and identity signals
- Supply-path optimization / direct publisher pipes reducing intermediary value
Leading indicators
- Growth in number and quality of premium supply partnerships (especially CTV)
- Take-rate stability vs peers
- Share of spend routed through direct publisher connections (e.g., OpenPath-like initiatives)
Counterarguments
- Large platforms can bundle DSP + ad server + inventory (end-to-end) and steer spend internally
- Many integrations are non-exclusive; competitors can replicate connectivity over time
Switching Costs General
Demand
Switching Costs General
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
Agency and advertiser workflows are embedded via platform training, tooling, and APIs; switching DSPs requires retraining teams and rebuilding custom integrations and reporting processes.
Erosion risks
- Standardized buying interfaces reduce differentiation across DSPs
- Agencies increasingly multi-home across DSPs
- Budget shifts toward closed platforms reduce open-internet DSP reliance
Leading indicators
- Customer retention and spend retention (net revenue retention proxy)
- Growth in certified users / training program participation
- Depth of API usage (number of active API clients / feature adoption)
Counterarguments
- Most large agencies already use multiple DSPs; switching costs may be manageable at the holding-company level
- Price and performance competition can overcome workflow inertia
Data Network Effects
Network
Data Network Effects
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Optimization and measurement benefit from scale: more bidding and impression data improves machine-learning models (e.g., prediction and pacing), which can improve performance and attract more spend.
Erosion risks
- Competitors with larger proprietary data (walled gardens) out-innovate on optimization
- Privacy regulation limits cross-site measurement and targeting signals
- Model performance depends on signal availability (cookies/IDs, clean-room access)
Leading indicators
- Adoption and performance metrics of AI tooling (e.g., Kokai feature penetration)
- Measurement/attribution partner coverage and signal quality
- Incremental performance benchmarks reported by large agencies/advertisers
Counterarguments
- Google/Meta/Amazon have larger first-party datasets and can match or exceed ML performance
- Open-internet signals may degrade as identifiers and tracking face restrictions
Standards Registry
Network
Standards Registry
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 2 evidence
UID2 is positioned as an open identity standard for the open internet. If adoption continues across publishers and platforms, it can strengthen addressability and reinforce The Trade Desk's role in the ecosystem (even if non-exclusive).
Erosion risks
- UID2 adoption stalls or fragments across competing identity solutions
- Major browsers/platforms limit identity interoperability
- Regulatory or consumer backlash against email/phone-derived identifiers
Leading indicators
- Publisher and platform adoption count / coverage of UID2-enabled inventory
- Advertiser and agency spend routed through UID2-enabled supply
- Policy changes from major browsers/mobile OS that affect identity and measurement
Counterarguments
- UID2 is open-source; benefits can accrue broadly (including to competitors)
- Walled gardens can maintain closed identity systems and keep spend inside their platforms
Evidence
Describes obtaining inventory via 220+ integrated exchanges/publishers/SSPs and integration with 350+ data vendors; also notes high integration cost for new entrants.
FOX, Roku and SiriusXM announced they would adopt Unified ID 2 (UID2).
Examples of adoption by large media platforms; supports the case for broader ecosystem standardization.
Revenue $2,444,831
FY2024 revenue (in thousands) used as numerator for implied share.
Market size valued at USD 31.49 billion in 2024.
Uses 2024 DSP market size estimate as denominator.
Risks & Indicators
Erosion risks
- Inventory consolidation or preferential access by vertically integrated platforms
- Walled gardens limiting programmatic access to their inventory and identity signals
- Supply-path optimization / direct publisher pipes reducing intermediary value
- Standardized buying interfaces reduce differentiation across DSPs
- Agencies increasingly multi-home across DSPs
- Budget shifts toward closed platforms reduce open-internet DSP reliance
Leading indicators
- Growth in number and quality of premium supply partnerships (especially CTV)
- Take-rate stability vs peers
- Share of spend routed through direct publisher connections (e.g., OpenPath-like initiatives)
- Customer retention and spend retention (net revenue retention proxy)
- Growth in certified users / training program participation
- Depth of API usage (number of active API clients / feature 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.