VOL. XCIV, NO. 247
★ WIDE MOAT STOCKS & COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES ★
PRICE: 0 CENTS
Thursday, January 8, 2026
Dino Polska S.A.
DNP · Warsaw 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Spot something outdated?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
Dino Polska operates a fast-growing network of mid-sized grocery supermarkets in Poland, focused on convenient locations close to where people live. Its moat mechanisms are mainly physical store density plus a standardized format that supports rapid rollout, and a vertically integrated fresh-food supply chain (owned distribution centers and Agro-Rydzyna meat processing) enabling daily deliveries. Pricing power is constrained by intense discount-led competition, so execution and cost control matter.
Primary segment
Proximity grocery retail (Dino stores)
Market structure
Oligopoly
Market share
7%-9% (reported)
HHI: —
Coverage
1 segments · 6 tags
Updated 2026-01-05
Segments
Proximity grocery retail (Dino stores)
Retail grocery (mid-sized proximity supermarkets)
Revenue
100%
Structure
Oligopoly
Pricing
weak
Share
7%-9% (reported)
Peers
Moat Claims
Proximity grocery retail (Dino stores)
Retail grocery (mid-sized proximity supermarkets)
Dino stores emphasize fresh assortment (including in-house meat processing) and daily deliveries; expansion remains primarily organic.
Physical Network Density
Supply
Physical Network Density
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Large and growing store base in convenient local locations supports dense physical availability and shorter delivery routes.
Erosion risks
- Store saturation/cannibalization
- Competitor expansion into smaller towns
- E-commerce/grocery delivery adoption
Leading indicators
- Net new stores per year
- Like-for-like (LFL) sales growth
- Distribution capacity per store
Counterarguments
- Physical density is replicable with sustained capex by larger discounters
- Low switching costs in grocery can limit loyalty benefits
Habit Default
Demand
Habit Default
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Neighborhood convenience encourages frequent repeat purchases, but consumers can multi-home across chains.
Erosion risks
- Price wars shift traffic to discounters
- Competitors open closer locations
- Rapid shift to online grocery
Leading indicators
- Basket size and frequency (if disclosed)
- Foot traffic proxies
- LFL sales vs market
Counterarguments
- Grocery shopping has minimal switching costs; customers can easily split baskets
- Convenience may not outweigh meaningful price gaps
Supply Chain Control
Supply
Supply Chain Control
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Owned distribution centers and in-house meat processing support fresh assortment execution and daily replenishment.
Erosion risks
- Logistics and energy cost inflation
- Food safety / quality incidents
- Capacity bottlenecks in distribution or processing
Leading indicators
- On-shelf availability / inventory levels (if disclosed)
- Fresh product share of revenue
- New distribution center openings
Counterarguments
- Scale of global competitors can offset vertical integration advantages
- Vertical assets can become fixed-cost burdens in downturns
Operational Excellence
Supply
Operational Excellence
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Standardized store format plus disciplined inventory and pricing processes support rapid rollout and consistent execution.
Erosion risks
- Labor cost inflation
- Execution complexity at larger scale
- IT/cyber incidents disrupting operations
Leading indicators
- SG&A as % of sales
- EBITDA margin trend
- New store opening cadence vs plan
Counterarguments
- Operational playbooks are transferable; competitors can implement similar processes
- Cost savings may be competed away via lower prices
Scale Economies Unit Cost
Supply
Scale Economies Unit Cost
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Rapid footprint growth increases purchasing volumes and can improve unit economics, but benefits can be competed away through price competition.
Erosion risks
- Diminishing returns / diseconomies of scale
- Supplier price increases offset procurement gains
- Higher promotional intensity
Leading indicators
- Gross margin trend
- Procurement terms (if disclosed)
- Distribution cost per store
Counterarguments
- Large international discounters already operate at massive scale
- Scale can increase bureaucracy and reduce store-level agility
Evidence
Its network numbered 3,033 stores at the end of 2025.
Shows current scale of store footprint.
located close to clients' places of residence
Supports convenience/location-driven footprint.
looking for stores close to the place of residence and striving for convenience
Highlights consumer behavior that proximity formats can capture.
logistics network, based on our own distribution centres
Indicates vertical control of logistics and distribution.
Fresh products are delivered to Dino stores every morning.
Supports claim of daily fresh-product logistics.
Showing 5 of 10 sources.
Risks & Indicators
Erosion risks
- Store saturation/cannibalization
- Competitor expansion into smaller towns
- E-commerce/grocery delivery adoption
- Price wars shift traffic to discounters
- Competitors open closer locations
- Rapid shift to online grocery
Leading indicators
- Net new stores per year
- Like-for-like (LFL) sales growth
- Distribution capacity per store
- Basket size and frequency (if disclosed)
- Foot traffic proxies
- LFL sales vs market
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.