VOL. XCIV, NO. 247
★ WIDE MOAT STOCKS & COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES ★
PRICE: 0 CENTS
Wednesday, December 31, 2025
BlackRock, Inc.
BLK · New York Stock Exchange
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Spot something outdated?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
BlackRock is a global asset manager with major businesses in iShares ETFs, index and active public markets strategies, alternatives/private markets, cash management, and the Aladdin technology platform. The most defensible moats are (1) scale + brand in ETFs/index implementation and (2) high workflow switching costs plus long-term contracts in Aladdin. Alternatives benefit from longer-duration fee structures on committed capital, while public-market active strategies are more exposed to performance-driven churn and fee pressure. Key risks include fee compression (especially in core beta), distributor renegotiation and regulation-driven channel shifts, and technology/operational risks tied to critical vendors and platform reliability.
Primary segment
iShares ETFs & ETPs
Market structure
Oligopoly
Market share
28.3% (reported)
HHI: —
Coverage
7 segments · 7 tags
Updated 2025-12-31
Segments
iShares ETFs & ETPs
Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and exchange-traded products (ETPs)
Revenue
33%
Structure
Oligopoly
Pricing
moderate
Share
28.3% (reported)
Peers
Institutional Index Mandates (Non-ETF)
Institutional index mandates and index mutual funds (non-ETF)
Revenue
5.7%
Structure
Oligopoly
Pricing
weak
Share
—
Peers
Active & Multi-Asset (Public Markets)
Active public markets asset management (equity, fixed income, multi-asset solutions)
Revenue
27.5%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
weak
Share
—
Peers
Alternatives & Private Markets
Alternatives and private markets (private markets, hedge funds/liquid alternatives)
Revenue
13.5%
Structure
Oligopoly
Pricing
strong
Share
—
Peers
Cash Management (MMFs & cash solutions)
Money market funds and institutional cash management
Revenue
5.1%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
weak
Share
—
Peers
Aladdin & Technology Services
Investment management technology and risk analytics platforms
Revenue
7.9%
Structure
Oligopoly
Pricing
strong
Share
—
Peers
Distribution & Advisory Services
Asset management distribution, servicing and advisory/solutions
Revenue
7.3%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
weak
Share
—
Peers
Moat Claims
iShares ETFs & ETPs
Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and exchange-traded products (ETPs)
Revenue_share is mapped from FY2024 Form 10-K revenue detail (investment advisory/admin fees & securities lending): Equity ETFs ($5,124m) + Fixed income ETFs ($1,367m) + Currency/commodities ($247m, includes commodity/crypto ETFs/ETPs) divided by total revenue ($20,407m). Source: FY2024 Form 10-K.
Scale Economies Unit Cost
Supply
Scale Economies Unit Cost
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
Scale in ETF AUM, distribution reach, and operating infrastructure supports low unit costs (including the ability to compete in fee-led categories) and resilient economics via breadth + securities lending embedded in fund economics.
Erosion risks
- Fee compression in core beta ETFs
- Competitors with structurally lower-fee models gaining share
- ETF market structure stress during volatility reducing confidence
Leading indicators
- iShares net new assets (NNA) and share-of-flows vs peers
- Average iShares fee rate trend (bps) by category
- Bid-ask spreads and premium/discount stability for flagship funds
Counterarguments
- Many ETF exposures are commoditized; investors can switch providers based primarily on fees and tracking difference.
Brand Trust
Demand
Brand Trust
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
Institutional-grade brand and fiduciary positioning supports retention in scale beta and adoption of newer offerings (e.g., active ETFs, digital-asset-adjacent products) where perceived safety and operational competence matter.
Erosion risks
- Reputational damage (stewardship/ESG politicization, operational incidents)
- Client trust erosion after product/operational failures
Leading indicators
- Institutional retention / renewal outcomes in index mandates and large platforms
- Regulatory investigations or enforcement actions impacting reputation
Counterarguments
- In ultra-low-cost beta, brand often matters less than expense ratio and platform placement.
Distribution Control
Supply
Distribution Control
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Broad intermediary relationships and embedded presence on platforms can support product placement and model-portfolio inclusion, but relationships are non-exclusive and subject to renegotiation and regulation-driven shifts.
Erosion risks
- Distributor renegotiations reducing shelf space or raising costs
- Platform house-brand ETFs taking preference
- Regulatory changes altering distributor incentives
Leading indicators
- Platform inclusion/exclusion events for flagship ETFs
- Channel-level flow mix changes (retail intermediary vs institutional vs retirement)
Counterarguments
- Large distributors can steer flows toward their own products or preferred issuers, weakening issuer-level distribution advantage.
Institutional Index Mandates (Non-ETF)
Institutional index mandates and index mutual funds (non-ETF)
Revenue_share is mapped from FY2024 Form 10-K revenue detail (investment advisory/admin fees & securities lending): Equity non-ETF index ($784m) + Fixed income non-ETF index ($369m) divided by total revenue ($20,407m). Source: FY2024 Form 10-K.
Operational Excellence
Supply
Operational Excellence
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Large-scale index implementation depends on tracking discipline, risk controls, trading execution, and operational reliability; scale supports investments in systems and oversight.
Erosion risks
- Tracking error / operational incidents leading to mandate loss
- Transition of index mandates to lowest-fee bidder
Leading indicators
- Index tracking performance vs tolerance bands
- Institutional index mandate retention and rebid win rates
Counterarguments
- Index mandates are frequently rebid; price competition can overpower operational differentiation.
Switching Costs General
Demand
Switching Costs General
Strength: 2/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Switching index managers can involve operational migration, governance work, and transition trading, creating some friction-but contracts are generally terminable and rebid cycles are common.
Erosion risks
- Improved transition tools reducing switching friction
- Consultant-driven fee benchmarking accelerating rebids
Leading indicators
- Mandate win/loss disclosures and consultant sentiment
- Net flows in institutional index AUM
Counterarguments
- If fee and tracking are comparable, institutions can switch managers with planned transitions.
Active & Multi-Asset (Public Markets)
Active public markets asset management (equity, fixed income, multi-asset solutions)
Revenue_share is mapped from FY2024 Form 10-K revenue detail: (Equity active $2,166m + Fixed income active $1,952m + Multi-asset $1,278m + performance fees non-alternatives $219m) divided by total revenue ($20,407m). Source: FY2024 Form 10-K.
Suite Bundling
Demand
Suite Bundling
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
Breadth across asset classes plus portfolio construction and risk tooling supports multi-product adoption (solutions mindset), lowering the odds that clients fully exit after a single strategy disappoints.
Erosion risks
- Best-of-breed point solutions displacing bundled approaches
- Platform distributors pushing competing active solutions
Leading indicators
- Multi-product client penetration and cross-sell metrics (if disclosed)
- Net flows by active category vs peers
Counterarguments
- Investment performance is the dominant driver; a broad platform does not prevent outflows after sustained underperformance.
Brand Trust
Demand
Brand Trust
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Brand and institutional credibility help win mandates, especially in risk-sensitive fixed income and outsourced solutions, but do not eliminate performance-driven churn.
Erosion risks
- Reputation impacts from governance/ESG controversies
- Operational failures leading to client terminations
Leading indicators
- Institutional mandate win rates
- Active product performance persistence vs benchmarks/peer medians
Counterarguments
- In active, the moat is often fragile: performance and fees can override brand loyalty.
Procurement Inertia
Demand
Procurement Inertia
Strength: 2/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Institutional due diligence and operational onboarding can slow manager switches, but consultant-driven processes can also accelerate changes when performance or fees disappoint.
Erosion risks
- Consultant and allocator standardization reducing switching friction
- Growth of passive/ETF wrappers cannibalizing active mutual funds
Leading indicators
- Active net outflows trend relative to peers
- Average fee rate trend in active categories
Counterarguments
- Manager transitions have become more standardized; inertia is limited when allocators see better risk-adjusted alternatives.
Alternatives & Private Markets
Alternatives and private markets (private markets, hedge funds/liquid alternatives)
Revenue_share is mapped from FY2024 Form 10-K revenue detail: Alternatives base fees (Private markets $1,196m + Liquid alternatives $568m = $1,764m) plus alternatives performance fees ($988m) divided by total revenue ($20,407m). Source: FY2024 Form 10-K.
Long Term Contracts
Demand
Long Term Contracts
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
Private markets economics are supported by longer-duration capital (committed/unfunded capital structures and multi-year vehicles), making fee streams stickier than public-market active strategies; performance fees add optionality but are cyclical.
Erosion risks
- Fundraising downturns and slower realizations reducing new vintages
- Fee pressure from LPs and shift toward lower-fee evergreen structures
- Regulatory changes affecting private fund fees and disclosures
Leading indicators
- Alternatives fundraising / fee-paying AUM growth
- Realizations, performance fee trends, and valuation marks
- Remaining performance obligation for alternatives (if updated in filings)
Counterarguments
- LPs can reallocate away in new vintages; the moat depends on continued performance and product-market fit.
Brand Trust
Demand
Brand Trust
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Institutional allocators tend to favor large, established managers with strong governance, reporting, and risk controls; BlackRock's platform and reputation can support fundraising in competitive cycles.
Erosion risks
- Reputation impacts from deal controversies or underperformance
- Key-person departures at acquired/private markets platforms
Leading indicators
- Institutional re-ups and co-invest participation (where disclosed)
- Private markets performance vs peer quartiles
Counterarguments
- Top-tier alternatives managers compete intensely; brand alone does not secure allocations without persistent performance.
Scope Economies
Supply
Scope Economies
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Cross-selling alternatives within whole-portfolio solutions and leveraging technology/data (e.g., eFront + Aladdin workflows) can improve client stickiness and operational differentiation in private markets.
Erosion risks
- Integration execution risk across platforms and acquired businesses
- Clients adopting best-of-breed private markets tech stacks instead
Leading indicators
- Alternatives attach rate within OCIO/solutions mandates (if disclosed)
- Adoption of eFront/whole-portfolio tools among alternatives clients
Counterarguments
- Scope can add complexity; some LPs prefer specialists over broad platforms.
Cash Management (MMFs & cash solutions)
Money market funds and institutional cash management
Revenue_share is mapped from FY2024 Form 10-K revenue detail: Cash management fees ($1,049m) divided by total revenue ($20,407m). Source: FY2024 Form 10-K.
Brand Trust
Demand
Brand Trust
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Cash products are trust-sensitive; perceived safety, liquidity management, and operational reliability influence retention, especially for institutional and official clients.
Erosion risks
- Liquidity events or NAV stress undermining confidence
- Regulatory changes to money market funds increasing costs or reducing product appeal
Leading indicators
- Cash management AUM and net flows vs rate cycle
- Fee waivers and yield competitiveness (spread to peers)
Counterarguments
- Cash products are highly substitutable; large clients can move balances quickly based on yield and platform convenience.
Operational Excellence
Supply
Operational Excellence
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Operational controls, risk limits, and disciplined credit surveillance are central to delivering stable cash outcomes and meeting regulatory requirements.
Erosion risks
- Operational errors, settlement failures, or cyber incidents
Leading indicators
- Operational incidents and client complaints (if disclosed)
- Regulatory exam outcomes affecting operations
Counterarguments
- Competitors can match operational standards; differentiation may be limited beyond brand and platform reach.
Aladdin & Technology Services
Investment management technology and risk analytics platforms
Revenue_share is mapped from FY2024 Form 10-K: Technology services revenue ($1,603m) divided by total revenue ($20,407m). Source: FY2024 Form 10-K.
Data Workflow Lockin
Demand
Data Workflow Lockin
Strength: 5/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
Aladdin is positioned as end-to-end investment and risk management SaaS; embedding portfolio, risk, and accounting workflows increases switching costs and supports high retention once integrated across teams and processes.
Erosion risks
- Clients shifting to modular, multi-vendor architectures
- Cybersecurity incidents or prolonged outages damaging trust
- Regulatory requirements increasing compliance burden for platform providers
Leading indicators
- Annual contract value (ACV) growth trend
- Net new client mandates and multi-product attach rates
- Client churn / renewal outcomes (if disclosed)
Counterarguments
- Large institutions can build or assemble in-house systems using modular vendors, reducing reliance on a single platform.
Long Term Contracts
Demand
Long Term Contracts
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 5/5 · 1 evidence
Technology services are typically delivered under long-term contracts; recurring revenue and contract value provide visibility and enable reinvestment into platform capabilities.
Erosion risks
- Contract renegotiations reducing price escalators
- Large-client concentration increasing renewal risk
Leading indicators
- ACV renewal rate and net retention (if disclosed)
- Average contract duration changes over time
Counterarguments
- Long-term contracts reduce churn but do not prevent down-sell if modules become less competitive.
Suite Bundling
Demand
Suite Bundling
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
Multi-module adoption (Aladdin Risk, accounting, Provider connectivity, eFront, wealth tools) increases product breadth and makes displacement by a point vendor harder once multiple functions are consolidated.
Erosion risks
- Best-of-breed modules out-innovating suite components
- Client preference for open architecture limiting suite penetration
Leading indicators
- Multi-product attach rate for new mandates
- Expansion revenue from existing clients (upsell)
Counterarguments
- Some clients prefer to keep specialized best-of-breed tools rather than standardize on one suite.
Distribution & Advisory Services
Asset management distribution, servicing and advisory/solutions
Revenue_share is mapped from FY2024 Form 10-K: Distribution fees ($1,273m) + Advisory and other revenue ($224m) divided by total revenue ($20,407m). Source: FY2024 Form 10-K.
Distribution Control
Supply
Distribution Control
Strength: 2/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Distribution outcomes depend on maintaining strong third-party relationships; there is some relationship value, but it is limited by renegotiation cycles and shifting distributor incentives.
Erosion risks
- Distributor consolidation increasing bargaining power
- Regulatory changes reducing shelf space or altering product menus
- Shift toward in-house managed portfolios at platforms
Leading indicators
- Distribution fee rate changes and renegotiation outcomes
- Changes in product shelf presence and platform partnerships
Counterarguments
- Distributors often steer flows based on economics and internal priorities; issuer influence is structurally limited.
Procurement Inertia
Demand
Procurement Inertia
Strength: 2/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Institutional advisory/solutions relationships can be sticky due to governance processes and implementation complexity, but they remain competitive and subject to rebids.
Erosion risks
- Commoditization of advisory and portfolio construction tools
- Procurement standardization favoring lowest-price providers
Leading indicators
- Advisory/distribution revenue growth vs AUM growth
- Client renewal and win/loss trends (if disclosed)
Counterarguments
- Large institutions can competitively tender advisory work; switching costs are often manageable with planning.
Evidence
Describes BlackRock's ETF platform scale and competitive dynamics; includes risks tied to ETF market plumbing (authorized participants/market makers) and highlights BlackRock's global ETF position.
ETFGI states iShares remains the largest ETF provider globally, reporting $5.28T AUM and 28.3% market share at end of September 2025.
Risks & Indicators
Erosion risks
- Fee compression in core beta ETFs
- Competitors with structurally lower-fee models gaining share
- ETF market structure stress during volatility reducing confidence
- Reputational damage (stewardship/ESG politicization, operational incidents)
- Client trust erosion after product/operational failures
- Distributor renegotiations reducing shelf space or raising costs
Leading indicators
- iShares net new assets (NNA) and share-of-flows vs peers
- Average iShares fee rate trend (bps) by category
- Bid-ask spreads and premium/discount stability for flagship funds
- Institutional retention / renewal outcomes in index mandates and large platforms
- Regulatory investigations or enforcement actions impacting reputation
- Platform inclusion/exclusion events for flagship ETFs
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.