VOL. XCIV, NO. 247

★ WIDE MOAT STOCKS COMPARISON ★

NO ADVICE

Thursday, January 1, 2026

Stock Comparison

W.W. Grainger, Inc. vs Universal Music Group N.V.

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

W.W. Grainger, Inc.

GWW · New York Stock Exchange

Market cap (USD)
SectorIndustrials
CountryUS
Data as of2026-01-01
Moat score
65/ 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 W.W. Grainger, Inc.'s moat claims, evidence, and risks.

View GWW analysis

Universal Music Group N.V.

UMG · Euronext Amsterdam

Market cap (USD)
SectorCommunication Services
CountryNL
Data as of2025-12-28
Moat score
77/ 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 Universal Music Group N.V.'s moat claims, evidence, and risks.

View UMG analysis

Comparison highlights

  • Moat score gap: Universal Music Group N.V. leads (77 / 100 vs 65 / 100 for W.W. Grainger, Inc.).
  • Segment focus: W.W. Grainger, Inc. has 3 segments (79.9% in High-Touch Solutions N.A.); Universal Music Group N.V. has 3 segments (75.2% in Recorded Music).
  • Primary market structure: Competitive vs Oligopoly. Pricing power: Moderate vs Moderate.
  • Moat breadth: W.W. Grainger, Inc. has 5 moat types across 2 domains; Universal Music Group N.V. has 5 across 3.

Primary market context

W.W. Grainger, Inc.

High-Touch Solutions N.A.

Market

MRO (maintenance, repair and operations) products distribution and value-added inventory/procurement solutions

Geography

North America (U.S., Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico)

Customer

Mid-size and large businesses with complex purchasing operations; also government and institutions

Role

Distributor / wholesaler + onsite inventory services

Revenue share

79.9%

Universal Music Group N.V.

Recorded Music

Market

Recorded music rights (labels) and monetization (streaming, physical, licensing/sync)

Geography

Global

Customer

Digital service providers (audio/video/social), physical retailers, and licensing counterparties

Role

Label / master rights holder; artist development, marketing and distribution

Revenue share

75.2%

Side-by-side metrics

W.W. Grainger, Inc.
Universal Music Group N.V.
Ticker / Exchange
GWW - New York Stock Exchange
UMG - Euronext Amsterdam
Market cap (USD)
n/a
n/a
Sector
Industrials
Communication Services
HQ country
US
NL
Primary segment
High-Touch Solutions N.A.
Recorded Music
Market structure
Competitive
Oligopoly
Market share
n/a
31%-33% (estimated)
HHI estimate
n/a
n/a
Pricing power
Moderate
Moderate
Moat score
65 / 100
77 / 100
Moat domains
Supply, Demand
Legal, Supply, Demand
Last update
2026-01-01
2025-12-28

Moat coverage

Shared moat types

Service Field NetworkScale Economies Unit Cost

W.W. Grainger, Inc. strengths

Data Workflow LockinScope EconomiesOperational Excellence

Universal Music Group N.V. strengths

Content Rights CurrencyBrand TrustLong Term Contracts

Segment mix

W.W. Grainger, Inc. segments

Full profile >

High-Touch Solutions N.A.

Competitive

79.9%

Endless Assortment

Competitive

18.3%

Other (Cromwell U.K. + captive insurance)

Competitive

1.8%

Universal Music Group N.V. segments

Full profile >

Recorded Music

Oligopoly

75.2%

Music Publishing

Oligopoly

17.9%

Merchandising and Other

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.