VOL. XCIV, NO. 247

★ WIDE MOAT STOCKS COMPARISON ★

NO ADVICE

Tuesday, December 30, 2025

Stock Comparison

S.F. Holding Co., Ltd. vs Thomson Reuters Corporation

Compare moat strength, market structure, and segment coverage to understand how each company defends its edge.

S.F. Holding Co., Ltd.

002352 · Shenzhen Stock Exchange

Market cap (USD)$27.4B
SectorIndustrials
CountryCN
Data as of2025-12-28
Moat score
75/ 100

Weighted average of segment moat scores, combining moat strength, durability, confidence, market structure, pricing power, and market share.

Full stock profile

Dive deeper into S.F. Holding Co., Ltd.'s moat claims, evidence, and risks.

View 002352 analysis

Thomson Reuters Corporation

TRI · Toronto Stock Exchange

Market cap (USD)
SectorIndustrials
CountryCA
Data as of2025-12-30
Moat score
84/ 100

Weighted average of segment moat scores, combining moat strength, durability, confidence, market structure, pricing power, and market share.

Full stock profile

Dive deeper into Thomson Reuters Corporation's moat claims, evidence, and risks.

View TRI analysis

Comparison highlights

  • Moat score gap: Thomson Reuters Corporation leads (84 / 100 vs 75 / 100 for S.F. Holding Co., Ltd.).
  • Segment focus: S.F. Holding Co., Ltd. has 7 segments (43% in Time-definite Express); Thomson Reuters Corporation has 5 segments (40.1% in Legal Professionals).
  • Primary market structure: Quasi-Monopoly vs Duopoly. Pricing power: Strong vs Strong.
  • Moat breadth: S.F. Holding Co., Ltd. has 9 moat types across 3 domains; Thomson Reuters Corporation has 4 across 3.

Primary market context

S.F. Holding Co., Ltd.

Time-definite Express

Market

Premium time-definite parcel express delivery services

Geography

China

Customer

B2B, B2C

Role

Integrated parcel pickup, sorting, line-haul, and last-mile delivery

Revenue share

43%

Thomson Reuters Corporation

Legal Professionals

Market

Legal research and legal workflow software

Geography

Global

Customer

Law firms, corporate legal departments, and governments

Role

Subscription software + proprietary legal content

Revenue share

40.1%

Side-by-side metrics

S.F. Holding Co., Ltd.
Thomson Reuters Corporation
Ticker / Exchange
002352 - Shenzhen Stock Exchange
TRI - Toronto Stock Exchange
Market cap (USD)
$27.4B
n/a
Sector
Industrials
Industrials
HQ country
CN
CA
Primary segment
Time-definite Express
Legal Professionals
Market structure
Quasi-Monopoly
Duopoly
Market share
64.1% (reported)
n/a
HHI estimate
n/a
n/a
Pricing power
Strong
Strong
Moat score
75 / 100
84 / 100
Moat domains
Supply, Demand, Network
Demand, Legal, Supply
Last update
2025-12-28
2025-12-30

Moat coverage

Shared moat types

Brand TrustScale Economies Unit Cost

S.F. Holding Co., Ltd. strengths

Physical Network DensityOperational ExcellenceService Field NetworkTwo Sided NetworkScope EconomiesSwitching Costs GeneralNon-core ancillary activities

Thomson Reuters Corporation strengths

Data Workflow LockinRegulated Standards Pipe

Segment mix

S.F. Holding Co., Ltd. segments

Full profile >

Time-definite Express

Quasi-Monopoly

43%

Economy Express

Oligopoly

10%

LTL Freight

Competitive

13%

Cold Chain & Pharmaceutical

Competitive

3%

Intra-city On-demand

Oligopoly

3%

Supply Chain & International

Competitive

25%

Other (Non-logistics & Undistributed Units)

Competitive

3%

Thomson Reuters Corporation segments

Full profile >

Legal Professionals

Duopoly

40.1%

Corporates

Oligopoly

25.3%

Tax & Accounting Professionals

Oligopoly

16%

Reuters News

Oligopoly

11.4%

Global Print

Competitive

7.1%

Want the full wide moat stocks list?

Browse the full ranking of wide moat stocks, updated with moat scores and segment context.

View the moat stocks list

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.