VOL. XCIV, NO. 247
★ WIDE MOAT STOCKS & COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES ★
PRICE: 0 CENTS
Monday, January 5, 2026
Euronext N.V.
ENX · Euronext Paris
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Spot something outdated?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
Euronext N.V. is a pan-European market infrastructure group spanning listing venues, multi-asset trading, post-trade (clearing and CSD services), and non-volume businesses like market data and technology solutions. The core moat is regulatory and network-based: operating regulated markets and clearing infrastructure is license-gated, and liquidity or network effects concentrate trading and reinforce the value of proprietary market data. Post-trade franchises add switching costs through connectivity, netting and local-market operational embeddedness, while non-volume revenues (data and technology) benefit from proprietary inputs but face regulatory and competitive pressure.
Primary segment
Trading
Market structure
Oligopoly
Market share
64.8% (reported)
HHI: —
Coverage
7 segments · 7 tags
Updated 2026-01-03
Segments
Listing
European capital markets listings (equity and debt) on regulated markets and growth markets
Revenue
14.3%
Structure
Oligopoly
Pricing
moderate
Share
30%-33% (reported)
Peers
Trading
Multi-asset exchange trading venues (cash equities, derivatives, fixed income, FX, power)
Revenue
34.4%
Structure
Oligopoly
Pricing
moderate
Share
64.8% (reported)
Peers
Advanced Data Services
Exchange market data, reference and corporate actions data, and index or data licensing tied to Euronext venues and products
Revenue
14.9%
Structure
Quasi-Monopoly
Pricing
strong
Share
—
Peers
Clearing
Central counterparty (CCP) clearing for cash equities, derivatives and repo across Euronext trading venues
Revenue
12.4%
Structure
Oligopoly
Pricing
moderate
Share
—
Peers
Custody & Settlement
Central securities depository (CSD) services: issuance, custody, settlement and asset servicing (Euronext Securities)
Revenue
16.6%
Structure
Quasi-Monopoly
Pricing
moderate
Share
—
Peers
Technology Solutions & Other
Market infrastructure technology and services (trading technology, connectivity, and related solutions)
Revenue
6.5%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
weak
Share
—
Peers
Investor Services
Investor services and research or market-data spend analytics (including Substantive Research)
Revenue
0.9%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
weak
Share
—
Peers
Moat Claims
Listing
European capital markets listings (equity and debt) on regulated markets and growth markets
FY2024 revenue_share computed as Listing revenue (EUR 231.9m) / total revenue and income (EUR 1,626.9m) from the FY2024 results table.
Concession License
Legal
Concession License
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Operating regulated markets requires prior authorisation and ongoing compliance, which raises barriers to entry for new listing venues.
Erosion risks
- Regulatory reforms that make new venue entry easier
- Shift of issuance toward private markets (fewer IPOs)
- Competition from other European exchanges for flagship listings
Leading indicators
- Changes to MiFID/MiFIR venue regime
- Net new listings and delistings
- Listing fee compression or incentives
Counterarguments
- Large issuers can list or migrate to alternative venues (including US exchanges)
- IPO volumes are cyclical and can shrink regardless of venue strength
Two Sided Network
Network
Two Sided Network
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
A broad issuer base and investor attention reinforce venue attractiveness; Euronext cites a leading European listing position by number of listings.
Erosion risks
- Fragmentation of liquidity across venues and internalisation
- Regulatory or tax changes reducing attractiveness of public markets
- Loss of flagship issuers to competing exchanges
Leading indicators
- Primary market share of European IPOs
- Equity raising volumes and secondary offerings
- Average free float and trading turnover of listed names
Counterarguments
- Issuers can multi-list; investor attention is global and not locked to one venue
- Regulated listing is only one part of the ecosystem; banks and advisers influence venue choice
Trading
Multi-asset exchange trading venues (cash equities, derivatives, fixed income, FX, power)
FY2024 revenue_share computed as Trading revenue (EUR 559.4m) / total revenue and income (EUR 1,626.9m) from the FY2024 results table.
Two Sided Network
Network
Two Sided Network
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Liquidity attracts liquidity: higher participation and tighter spreads reinforce volume concentration on the primary venue for many Euronext cash equity markets.
Erosion risks
- Regulatory-driven fragmentation (MTFs, systematic internalisers)
- Fee compression from competition and open access
- Technology disruption (latency competition) and outages
Leading indicators
- Cash equity market share in Euronext-listed stocks
- Average daily volume (ADV) and order book depth
- Market quality metrics (spreads, outage incidents)
Counterarguments
- European equity trading is structurally fragmented; alternative venues can siphon flow in liquid names
- Internalisation by banks can reduce lit exchange volumes
Operational Excellence
Supply
Operational Excellence
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Performance, stability and scalability of the trading platform matter for members; Euronext highlights Optiq as its next-generation platform.
Erosion risks
- Competitors match or exceed latency and reliability
- Cyber or operational incidents harming trust
- Technology commoditisation or vendorisation
Leading indicators
- Platform latency and uptime disclosures
- Member satisfaction and connectivity growth
- Incident frequency and severity
Counterarguments
- Trading technology is widely available; differentiation can be short-lived
- Members can multi-connect and route flow dynamically
Advanced Data Services
Exchange market data, reference and corporate actions data, and index or data licensing tied to Euronext venues and products
FY2024 revenue_share computed as Advanced Data Services revenue (EUR 241.7m) / total revenue and income (EUR 1,626.9m) from the FY2024 results table.
IP Choke Point
Legal
IP Choke Point
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Proprietary real-time data from Euronext venues has limited direct substitutes; customers often prefer the home exchange feed for price formation and compliance.
Erosion risks
- Regulatory pressure on market data pricing (MiFID II or MiFIR) and possible consolidated tapes
- Customers shifting consumption to third-party aggregated feeds
- Growth of off-venue trading reducing value of venue data
Leading indicators
- Market data ARPU and per-user fees
- Regulatory consultations and rule changes on market data
- Share of trading executed off-venue vs lit markets
Counterarguments
- Large firms can use consolidated or alternative feeds for many use cases
- Regulation can cap prices and force more open access, weakening exclusivity
Format Lock In
Demand
Format Lock In
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Data feed integrations, entitlements and downstream dependencies create friction to switch data sources, supporting recurring subscriptions.
Erosion risks
- Standardisation and commoditisation of market data formats
- Increased use of cheaper delayed or non-real-time alternatives
- Vendor innovations that reduce integration costs
Leading indicators
- Growth in real-time vs delayed subscriptions
- Churn in professional user counts
- Mix shift toward bundled or enterprise agreements
Counterarguments
- Many consumers buy data through vendors, not directly from exchanges
- Some analytics use cases do not require venue-direct feeds
Clearing
Central counterparty (CCP) clearing for cash equities, derivatives and repo across Euronext trading venues
FY2024 revenue_share computed as (Clearing revenue EUR 144.3m + Net Treasury Income EUR 56.8m) / total revenue and income (EUR 1,626.9m) from the FY2024 results table.
Concession License
Legal
Concession License
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
CCP clearing is heavily regulated under EMIR; authorisation and supervision create high barriers to entry and ongoing compliance costs.
Erosion risks
- Regulatory changes enabling easier CCP entry or interoperability
- Policy-driven open access increasing competitive pressure
- Large defaults testing risk models and mutualised resources
Leading indicators
- Regulatory actions and rule changes (EMIR, MiFIR open access)
- Clearing member concentration and margin levels
- Default management drills and stress test outcomes
Counterarguments
- Open access rules can intensify CCP competition on fees
- Clients may clear at multiple CCPs to optimise margin and counterparty exposure
Clearing Settlement
Network
Clearing Settlement
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Vertical integration across Euronext venues and clearing can provide operational and margin efficiencies, supporting flow capture.
Erosion risks
- Fragmentation of trading across venues reduces netting benefits
- Interoperability or open access reduces vertical integration advantages
- Technology or risk management failures
Leading indicators
- Clearing volumes and open interest by product
- Average margin requirements and netting efficiency metrics
- Member onboarding or attrition
Counterarguments
- Clearing is a scale game where larger CCPs can outcompete on margin and capital efficiency
- Regulators may prefer interoperability or competition, weakening integrated models
Custody & Settlement
Central securities depository (CSD) services: issuance, custody, settlement and asset servicing (Euronext Securities)
FY2024 revenue_share computed as Custody & Settlement revenue (EUR 270.5m) / total revenue and income (EUR 1,626.9m) from the FY2024 results table.
Clearing Settlement
Network
Clearing Settlement
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
CSD services are embedded in local market practices and participant connectivity; Euronext highlights network effects supporting strong local positions over time.
Erosion risks
- CSDR-enabled cross-border competition increasing switching
- Harmonisation reduces local specificities advantage
- Technological shifts (tokenisation) changing settlement rails
Leading indicators
- Participant connectivity and custody or settlement volumes
- Cross-border issuance or custody flows
- Regulatory developments on settlement (CSDR, DLT regimes)
Counterarguments
- CSDR explicitly allows competition; issuers can choose non-domestic CSDs
- Technology and harmonisation may reduce the stickiness of local arrangements
Concession License
Legal
Concession License
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
CSDs operate under a regulated regime (CSDR) with significant compliance and operational requirements, limiting new entrants.
Erosion risks
- Regulatory changes reducing compliance burdens
- Increased interoperability among CSDs lowering barriers
- Operational incidents reducing trust
Leading indicators
- CSDR settlement discipline regime changes
- Service-level incidents and settlement fails
- Pricing changes for custody and settlement services
Counterarguments
- Regulation can also force more openness and competition rather than protect incumbents
- Large custodians can steer activity based on price and connectivity
Technology Solutions & Other
Market infrastructure technology and services (trading technology, connectivity, and related solutions)
FY2024 revenue_share computed as Technology Solutions & Other revenue (EUR 106.2m) / total revenue and income (EUR 1,626.9m) from the FY2024 results table.
Operational Excellence
Supply
Operational Excellence
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Euronext positions its in-house trading technology as a competitive platform capability (stability, scalability, latency).
Erosion risks
- Rapid technology change and new entrants
- Clients choosing alternative vendors with lower cost
- Cybersecurity incidents
Leading indicators
- New client wins or renewals for technology solutions
- Product roadmap delivery (latency, features)
- Security incidents and remediation
Counterarguments
- Financial IT is highly competitive and features commoditise quickly
- Large clients can build or buy comparable systems elsewhere
Investor Services
Investor services and research or market-data spend analytics (including Substantive Research)
FY2024 revenue_share computed as Investor Services revenue (EUR 14.1m) / total revenue and income (EUR 1,626.9m) from the FY2024 results table.
Data Workflow Lockin
Demand
Data Workflow Lockin
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Workflow integration in spend analytics and benchmarking can create modest switching costs once embedded in research procurement and reporting processes.
Erosion risks
- Well-funded analytics competitors and point solutions
- Customers building internal tooling for spend analytics
- Low switching costs if output is standard reports
Leading indicators
- Client retention and net revenue retention in Investor Services
- User growth and product usage depth
- Competitive pricing pressure
Counterarguments
- Products are often non-exclusive and easy to trial or replace
- Buyers can multi-home research analytics across vendors
Evidence
A Regulated Market cannot operate without securing prior authorisation from its regulator(s).
Supports license-gated entry for regulated market operators.
Euronext ranked as leading listing venue in Europe with 30% of European listings in 2024.
Indicates scale in listings that supports issuer and investor reinforcement dynamics.
Euronext ranked as leading listing venue in Europe with 30% of European listings in 2024.
Direct company statement for 2024 share.
Euronext recorded 33% of equity listings in Europe with 53 new equity listings in 2024.
Second company-reported datapoint; range reflects these two figures.
Euronext remains the largest liquidity pool in Europe, with market share on its cash equity markets averaging 64.8% in 2024.
Direct support for scale and liquidity concentration consistent with strong network effects.
Showing 5 of 15 sources.
Risks & Indicators
Erosion risks
- Regulatory reforms that make new venue entry easier
- Shift of issuance toward private markets (fewer IPOs)
- Competition from other European exchanges for flagship listings
- Fragmentation of liquidity across venues and internalisation
- Regulatory or tax changes reducing attractiveness of public markets
- Loss of flagship issuers to competing exchanges
Leading indicators
- Changes to MiFID/MiFIR venue regime
- Net new listings and delistings
- Listing fee compression or incentives
- Primary market share of European IPOs
- Equity raising volumes and secondary offerings
- Average free float and trading turnover of listed names
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.