VOL. XCIV, NO. 247
★ WIDE MOAT STOCKS & COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES ★
PRICE: 0 CENTS
Sunday, January 11, 2026
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.
FIS · 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Spot something outdated?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
FIS is a financial technology and outsourced-services provider to banks and capital markets firms. Banking Solutions (~68% of FY2024 revenue) is anchored by core processing and transaction platforms sold under multi-year contracts, creating high switching costs. Capital Market Solutions (~29% of FY2024 revenue) provides mission-critical trading, risk, and treasury systems with workflow/data lock-in and compliance features. The moat is strongest where FIS is the system of record and where regulatory/compliance demands favor scaled incumbents. Main pressures are competitive RFPs, client migrations to cloud-native cores and modular stacks, and security or reliability incidents that can accelerate churn.
Primary segment
Banking Solutions
Market structure
Oligopoly
Market share
—
HHI: —
Coverage
2 segments · 8 tags
Updated 2026-01-10
Segments
Banking Solutions
Core banking platforms and bank transaction processing software/services
Revenue
68.1%
Structure
Oligopoly
Pricing
moderate
Share
—
Peers
Capital Market Solutions
Capital markets and treasury technology (trading, post-trade, risk, treasury, lending)
Revenue
29.4%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
moderate
Share
—
Peers
Moat Claims
Banking Solutions
Core banking platforms and bank transaction processing software/services
Revenue share computed from FY2024 consolidated revenue by segment: Banking Solutions $6,892m of total $10,127m (continuing operations). Recurring Banking revenue was $5,752m (FY2024).
Long Term Contracts
Demand
Long Term Contracts
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
A large share of Banking revenue is tied to multi-year processing agreements that are renewed and expanded over time.
Erosion risks
- Competitive rebids at contract renewal
- Client insourcing or shift to cloud-native cores
- Large-bank consolidation reducing customer count
Leading indicators
- Recurring revenue share in Banking segment
- Net revenue retention and renewal rates
- Large core wins and core losses
Counterarguments
- Large institutions can dual-source or build in-house
- Modern core vendors can displace incumbents in SMB and neo-bank segments
Switching Costs General
Demand
Switching Costs General
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Core processing systems sit at the system-of-record layer (deposits/lending) and are deeply integrated into bank operations, making conversions risky and expensive.
Erosion risks
- Standardized APIs and data portability reduce migration friction
- Regulators encourage multi-vendor resilience strategies
- Customer dissatisfaction from outages or security incidents
Leading indicators
- Large-scale bank migrations away from incumbent cores
- Implementation backlog growth vs cancellations
- Service availability and incident frequency
Counterarguments
- Banks can and do migrate cores over multi-year programs when ROI is compelling
- Some workloads move to modular, best-of-breed stacks
Compliance Advantage
Legal
Compliance Advantage
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Operating as a regulated/overseen technology servicer and maintaining audit-ready controls can raise entry barriers versus smaller vendors.
Erosion risks
- New regulatory regimes increase compliance costs for all players
- Cyber incidents can erase perceived compliance advantage
- Cloud hyperscalers offer compliance tooling that narrows the gap
Leading indicators
- Regulatory findings or remediation requirements
- SOC and audit report coverage and renewals
- Security/compliance-related client churn
Counterarguments
- Compliance is necessary but not sufficient to win deals
- Large competitors meet the same regulatory expectations
Suite Bundling
Demand
Suite Bundling
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Breadth across core, transaction processing, and adjacent applications enables bundling and cross-sell, reducing point-solution displacement risk.
Erosion risks
- Best-of-breed vendors win unbundled components
- Procurement pushback against suite pricing
- Open banking standards lower integration advantages
Leading indicators
- Cross-sell attach rates to core clients
- Average contract value growth vs module count
- Competitive win-loss trends versus point solutions
Counterarguments
- Bundling can be perceived as lock-in and trigger buyer resistance
- Clients may prefer modular architectures with multiple vendors
Capital Market Solutions
Capital markets and treasury technology (trading, post-trade, risk, treasury, lending)
Revenue share computed from FY2024 consolidated revenue by segment: Capital Market Solutions $2,979m of total $10,127m (continuing operations). Recurring Capital Markets revenue was $2,145m (FY2024).
Data Workflow Lockin
Demand
Data Workflow Lockin
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Trading, risk, and treasury platforms are embedded in daily workflows (recordkeeping, analytics, and lifecycle processing), making replacement disruptive.
Erosion risks
- Platform consolidation to fewer vendors after M&A
- Shift to cloud-native and open-source tooling
- Client preference for in-house build for differentiating workflows
Leading indicators
- Net retention and renewal rates for hosted platforms
- New SaaS bookings vs legacy license run-rate
- Client migrations to competitor platforms
Counterarguments
- Large firms can migrate platforms over multi-year programs
- Some workflows are standardized and easier to replace
Compliance Advantage
Legal
Compliance Advantage
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Products that support surveillance/AML and other regulatory workflows can benefit from compliance requirements and frequent rule changes, favoring established vendors.
Erosion risks
- Regulatory simplification or harmonization reduces complexity
- New entrants specialize in narrow regtech niches
- Compliance failures damage trust
Leading indicators
- Growth in surveillance/compliance revenues
- Regulatory enforcement actions impacting clients
- Release cadence for regulatory updates
Counterarguments
- Specialist vendors can outperform suites in niche compliance modules
- Clients may adopt third-party regtech layered onto existing stacks
Ecosystem Complements
Network
Ecosystem Complements
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Integrated front-to-back ecosystems can increase value as more modules and third-party integrations are adopted, raising switching costs and expanding share-of-wallet.
Erosion risks
- Clients decouple stacks using APIs and middleware
- Vendor-neutral data layers reduce ecosystem dependence
- Module-level price competition reduces suite advantage
Leading indicators
- Number of modules per customer and attach rate
- Partner integration growth
- Churn in multi-module vs single-module customers
Counterarguments
- Best-of-breed stacks can outperform suites in performance and features
- Ecosystem effects are weaker if customers multi-home across vendors
Evidence
multi-year processing contracts
FIS states Banking is delivered under multi-year processing agreements, supporting contract-driven recurring revenue and retention.
primary records
FIS indicates its core applications maintain the system-of-record data for customer accounts, implying deep operational embedding and high conversion costs.
regulatory oversight and examination
The filing describes examination by U.S. banking regulators (via FFIEC programs), implying a compliance hurdle that tends to favor scaled incumbents.
bundle tailored
The filing emphasizes the ability to bundle integrated services, supporting a bundling/cross-sell advantage for institutions seeking vendor consolidation.
recordkeeping, data and analytics
FIS describes capital markets applications spanning recordkeeping and analytics inside mission-critical workflows, consistent with workflow/data lock-in.
Showing 5 of 7 sources.
Risks & Indicators
Erosion risks
- Competitive rebids at contract renewal
- Client insourcing or shift to cloud-native cores
- Large-bank consolidation reducing customer count
- Standardized APIs and data portability reduce migration friction
- Regulators encourage multi-vendor resilience strategies
- Customer dissatisfaction from outages or security incidents
Leading indicators
- Recurring revenue share in Banking segment
- Net revenue retention and renewal rates
- Large core wins and core losses
- Large-scale bank migrations away from incumbent cores
- Implementation backlog growth vs cancellations
- Service availability and incident frequency
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.