WIDE MOAT STOCKS COMPARISON

Checking

 

Stock Comparison

Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. vs The Charles Schwab Corporation

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

Interactive Brokers Group, Inc.

IBKR · The Nasdaq Global Select Market

Market cap (USD)$160.1B
Gross margin (TTM)93.3%
Operating margin (TTM)87.1%
Net margin (TTM)10.1%
SectorFinancials
IndustryBanks and capital markets
CountryUS
Data as of2026-08-23
68/100
Moat score

Weighted across the company's segments.

Full stock profile

Dive deeper into Interactive Brokers Group, Inc.'s moat claims, evidence, and risks.

View IBKR analysis

The Charles Schwab Corporation

SCHW · New York Stock Exchange

Market cap (USD)$167.2B
Gross margin (TTM)—
Operating margin (TTM)—
Net margin (TTM)38.8%
SectorFinancials
IndustryBanks and capital markets
CountryUS
Data as of2026-08-23
83/100
Moat score

Weighted across the company's segments.

Full stock profile

Dive deeper into The Charles Schwab Corporation's moat claims, evidence, and risks.

View SCHW analysis

Comparison highlights

  • Moat score gap: The Charles Schwab Corporation leads (83 / 100 vs 68 / 100 for Interactive Brokers Group, Inc.).
  • Segment focus: Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. has 1 segment (100% in Brokerage); The Charles Schwab Corporation has 2 segments (78.2% in Investor Services).
  • Primary market structure: Competitive vs Oligopoly. Pricing power: Weak vs Weak.
  • Moat breadth: Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. has 2 moat types across 2 domains; The Charles Schwab Corporation has 5 across 3.

Primary market context

Interactive Brokers Group, Inc.

Brokerage

Market

Multi-asset electronic brokerage, clearing, custody, prime brokerage, securities lending, margin lending, and prediction-market access

Geography

Global

Customer

Individual investors and institutional clients (e.g., hedge funds, advisors, proprietary trading firms, introducing brokers)

Role

Broker-dealer / clearing broker / platform operator

Revenue share

100%

The Charles Schwab Corporation

Investor Services

Market

U.S. retail brokerage, self-directed investing, and wealth management platforms

Geography

United States

Customer

Retail investors, employers, retirement plan sponsors

Role

Broker-dealer + bank + wealth manager platform

Revenue share

78.2%

Side-by-side metrics

Interactive Brokers Group, Inc.
The Charles Schwab Corporation
Ticker / Exchange
IBKR - The Nasdaq Global Select Market
SCHW - New York Stock Exchange
Market cap (USD)
$160.1B
$167.2B
Gross margin (TTM)
93.3%
n/a
Operating margin (TTM)
87.1%
n/a
Net margin (TTM)
10.1%
38.8%
Sector
Financials
Financials
Industry
Banks and capital markets
Banks and capital markets
HQ country
US
US
Primary segment
Brokerage
Investor Services
Market structure
Competitive
Oligopoly
Market share
n/a
n/a
HHI estimate
n/a
n/a
Pricing power
Weak
Weak
Moat score
68 / 100
83 / 100
Moat domains
Supply, Network
Supply, Demand, Financial
Last update
2026-09-05
2026-09-05

Moat coverage

Shared moat types

No overlap yet.

Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. strengths

Operational ExcellenceInteroperability Hub

The Charles Schwab Corporation strengths

Scale Economies Unit CostSuite BundlingBrand TrustFloat PrepaymentData Workflow Lockin

Segment mix

Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. segments

Full profile >

Brokerage

Competitive

100%

The Charles Schwab Corporation segments

Full profile >

Investor Services

Oligopoly

78.2%

Advisor Services

Oligopoly

21.8%

Act on this comparison

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.