VOL. XCIV, NO. 247
★ WIDE MOAT STOCKS & COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES ★
PRICE: 0 CENTS
Wednesday, January 7, 2026
Boston Scientific Corporation
BSX · 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Spot something outdated?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
Boston Scientific Corporation is a global medical device company focused on minimally invasive therapies across Endoscopy, Urology, Neuromodulation, Cardiology, and Peripheral Interventions. Its moats are primarily legal and demand-driven: regulatory approvals and clinical evidence requirements raise barriers, while physician familiarity and workflow integration create switching friction. A global direct sales force and relationships with leading physicians support distribution and commercial execution, and several businesses benefit from recurring, procedure-linked disposables or service-enabled installed bases (e.g., remote monitoring). Key erosion pressures are provider consolidation and tenders increasing price competition, rapid innovation by large peers, and regulatory/reimbursement shifts.
Primary segment
Cardiology
Market structure
Oligopoly
Market share
—
HHI: —
Coverage
5 segments · 6 tags
Updated 2026-01-04
Segments
Endoscopy
Gastrointestinal and pulmonary endoscopy devices (incl. single-use endoscopy platforms and procedure disposables)
Revenue
16%
Structure
Oligopoly
Pricing
moderate
Share
—
Peers
Urology
Urology devices (stone management, BPH, prostate cancer adjuncts, erectile dysfunction/incontinence implants) and related consumables
Revenue
13.1%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
moderate
Share
—
Peers
Neuromodulation
Neuromodulation and pain-management devices (spinal cord stimulation, deep brain stimulation, nerve ablation and related systems)
Revenue
6.6%
Structure
Oligopoly
Pricing
moderate
Share
—
Peers
Cardiology
Cardiology devices (interventional cardiology, structural heart, electrophysiology, cardiac rhythm management and remote monitoring)
Revenue
49.8%
Structure
Oligopoly
Pricing
moderate
Share
—
Peers
Peripheral Interventions
Peripheral vascular and interventional oncology devices (PAD/venous, embolization, ablation, TCAR and related systems)
Revenue
14.4%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
weak
Share
—
Peers
Moat Claims
Endoscopy
Gastrointestinal and pulmonary endoscopy devices (incl. single-use endoscopy platforms and procedure disposables)
Revenue share computed from FY2024 net sales table: Endoscopy $2.687B of $16.747B total net sales.
Installed Base Consumables
Demand
Installed Base Consumables
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Procedure-driven, repeat purchasing of single-use scopes and endoscopy disposables; once sites standardize workflows and inventory, reorder behavior supports recurring revenue.
Erosion risks
- Commoditization of single-use endoscopy platforms
- Hospital tender rebids driving price concessions
- Competitors matching infection-prevention features
Leading indicators
- Single-use scope penetration in GI/ERCP
- Consumables volume growth vs procedure volumes
- ASP / rebate intensity in major accounts
Counterarguments
- Single-use devices can become price-competitive quickly as competitors launch similar products
- Hospitals can multi-source disposables, limiting true lock-in
Procurement Inertia
Demand
Procurement Inertia
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Provider consolidation, GPO influence, and tender-based purchasing create inertia once products are on contract/formulary, but also increase price pressure.
Erosion risks
- Shift to more frequent tenders / multi-award contracting
- Greater price transparency and value-based procurement
- Distributor/third-party channel conflict
Leading indicators
- GPO contract win/loss rate
- Net price realization (rebates/discounts)
- Share changes around major tender cycles
Counterarguments
- Contracts are re-bid; incumbency advantages can reset quickly
- Large customers may force multi-vendor awards to keep pricing low
Urology
Urology devices (stone management, BPH, prostate cancer adjuncts, erectile dysfunction/incontinence implants) and related consumables
Revenue share computed from FY2024 net sales table: Urology $2.200B of $16.747B total net sales.
Installed Base Consumables
Demand
Installed Base Consumables
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
A mix of capital systems and recurring, procedure-linked disposables (e.g., single-use scopes, laser fibers, accessories) supports repeat purchasing once a site standardizes.
Erosion risks
- Competitors offering similar single-use scopes and accessories
- Price compression on disposables as products commoditize
- Capital budget cycles shifting placements to rivals
Leading indicators
- Urology consumables growth vs procedure volumes
- Laser installed base growth and utilization
- Average selling price and gross margin trends
Counterarguments
- Hospitals can multi-source consumables, reducing switching costs
- If clinical differentiation narrows, purchasing shifts to price
Training Org Change Costs
Demand
Training Org Change Costs
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Physician familiarity and workflow integration for device platforms (e.g., energy systems, implants, and procedural kits) creates friction to change vendors quickly.
Erosion risks
- Competitors subsidizing training and switching programs
- New modalities or guidelines shifting standard-of-care
- Movement of procedures to lower-cost outpatient settings
Leading indicators
- Physician adoption rates for new platforms
- Share changes after major product launches
- Clinical guideline and reimbursement updates
Counterarguments
- Training costs are often one-time and can be offset by pricing concessions
- Standardization committees can force vendor switches despite physician preference
Neuromodulation
Neuromodulation and pain-management devices (spinal cord stimulation, deep brain stimulation, nerve ablation and related systems)
Revenue share computed from FY2024 net sales table: Neuromodulation $1.106B of $16.747B total net sales.
Regulated Standards Pipe
Legal
Regulated Standards Pipe
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Regulatory approvals and the need for clinical evidence create barriers to entry and slow fast-follower competition in implantable/therapeutic neuromodulation.
Erosion risks
- Regulatory changes increasing evidence requirements or delaying approvals
- Reimbursement reductions for pain/neuro procedures
- Safety signals or adverse events leading to restrictions/recalls
Leading indicators
- FDA/CE approvals and label expansions
- Coverage decisions and reimbursement rate updates
- Recall and adverse-event reporting trends
Counterarguments
- Large competitors can fund comparable trials and obtain their own clearances
- Regulatory barriers slow entrants but do not prevent differentiated substitutes
Training Org Change Costs
Demand
Training Org Change Costs
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Complex implant and programming workflows (including proprietary programming software) make clinician training and familiarity important, raising switching friction.
Erosion risks
- Standardized programming tools reducing learning differences across vendors
- Competitors accelerating adoption via aggressive training/incentives
- Shifts to non-implant alternatives for chronic pain
Leading indicators
- New implant starts and replacement volumes
- Training program throughput and clinician adoption
- Competitive win/loss in key accounts
Counterarguments
- Physicians can re-train; switching costs may be manageable over time
- Hospital value analysis committees can override clinician preference
Cardiology
Cardiology devices (interventional cardiology, structural heart, electrophysiology, cardiac rhythm management and remote monitoring)
Revenue share computed from FY2024 net sales table: Cardiology $8.344B of $16.747B total net sales.
Reputation Reviews
Demand
Reputation Reviews
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Physician trust and adoption are reinforced by clinical evidence and leadership positions in flagship therapies (e.g., WATCHMAN in LAAC), supporting premium positioning and share stability.
Erosion risks
- Competitors producing superior clinical outcomes or new modalities
- Post-market safety issues damaging clinician confidence
- Guideline or reimbursement changes reducing procedure volumes
Leading indicators
- Peer-reviewed trial results and guideline updates
- Procedure volumes in LAAC and AF ablation
- Share trends in new implants/procedures
Counterarguments
- Clinical differentiation can be temporary as rivals publish competing data
- Leadership in one therapy may not translate across all cardiology categories
Installed Base Consumables
Demand
Installed Base Consumables
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Implantable CRM devices paired with remote monitoring/service obligations create recurring revenue and operational switching friction over the device/patient longevity period.
Erosion risks
- Interoperability mandates reducing monitoring platform stickiness
- Competitors bundling monitoring at lower cost
- Hospital standardization on alternative device ecosystems at replacement cycles
Leading indicators
- Deferred revenue balance tied to LATITUDE/LUX-Dx
- Installed base growth and patient monitoring adoption
- Replacement share in ICD/PM/ICM categories
Counterarguments
- Patients/device replacements create natural switch windows for competitors
- Remote monitoring is replicable and may become less differentiating over time
Distribution Control
Supply
Distribution Control
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Scale distribution via a direct sales force and relationships with leading physicians supports procedure adoption, account access, and launch execution in cardiology/EP labs.
Erosion risks
- Provider consolidation shifting power to centralized procurement/tenders
- Salesforce attrition and rising selling costs
- Increased role of digital procurement and price transparency
Leading indicators
- Tender win rates and share shifts in large IDNs
- Salesforce productivity and turnover
- Adoption curve for new launches (e.g., PFA)
Counterarguments
- Major competitors also have large direct sales forces and clinical specialist teams
- Central purchasing can reduce the value of relationship-driven selling
Peripheral Interventions
Peripheral vascular and interventional oncology devices (PAD/venous, embolization, ablation, TCAR and related systems)
Revenue share computed from FY2024 net sales table: Peripheral Interventions $2.410B of $16.747B total net sales.
Regulated Standards Pipe
Legal
Regulated Standards Pipe
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Regulatory approval and evidence requirements create barriers to entry for vascular and oncology devices and slow the pace of new competitive entrants.
Erosion risks
- Regulatory pathway changes increasing time-to-market
- Reimbursement cuts for peripheral/oncology procedures
- Product safety issues triggering restrictions or recalls
Leading indicators
- FDA/CE approvals and label expansions
- Recall and warning letter frequency
- Payer coverage decisions and reimbursement trends
Counterarguments
- Large, well-funded competitors can navigate the same regulatory pathways
- Regulation protects incumbents generally, not a single firm
Distribution Control
Supply
Distribution Control
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Portfolio breadth across peripheral categories supports account-level selling and bundled procedure coverage, reinforced by specialist-focused commercial teams.
Erosion risks
- Centralized procurement reducing the impact of portfolio breadth
- Niche innovators taking share in specific categories
- Price competition in commoditized peripheral devices
Leading indicators
- Category-level share trends (PAD, venous, embolization)
- Tender outcomes in large IDNs
- Cross-sell rates across peripheral portfolios
Counterarguments
- Peripheral markets are fragmented; portfolio breadth may not overcome best-in-class niches
- Hospitals can pick different vendors per category, limiting bundling power
Evidence
SpyGlass ... the first single-use scopes
Shows Boston Scientific sells disposable/single-use scope platforms in Endoscopy.
EXALT Model D Single-Use Duodenoscopes ... FDA-cleared single-use duodenoscopes
Supports a consumables-like revenue profile driven by disposable device usage per procedure.
group purchasing organizations ... represent a substantial portion of our net sales.
Indicates GPOs/buying groups are a major channel, consistent with contract-driven purchasing inertia.
regional and national tenders ... required to compete on the basis of price ...
Tenders can entrench incumbents for a period, but also cap pricing power.
LithoVue Single-Use Digital Flexible Ureteroscopes
Single-use ureteroscopes imply recurring revenue tied to procedure volume.
Showing 5 of 19 sources.
Risks & Indicators
Erosion risks
- Commoditization of single-use endoscopy platforms
- Hospital tender rebids driving price concessions
- Competitors matching infection-prevention features
- Shift to more frequent tenders / multi-award contracting
- Greater price transparency and value-based procurement
- Distributor/third-party channel conflict
Leading indicators
- Single-use scope penetration in GI/ERCP
- Consumables volume growth vs procedure volumes
- ASP / rebate intensity in major accounts
- GPO contract win/loss rate
- Net price realization (rebates/discounts)
- Share changes around major tender cycles
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.