VOL. XCIV, NO. 247

★ WIDE MOAT STOCKS COMPARISON ★

NO ADVICE

Tuesday, December 30, 2025

Stock Comparison

International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. vs Rheinmetall Aktiengesellschaft

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

International Flavors & Fragrances Inc.

IFF · New York Stock Exchange

Market cap (USD)$17.4B
SectorMaterials
CountryUS
Data as of2025-12-29
Moat score
59/ 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 International Flavors & Fragrances Inc.'s moat claims, evidence, and risks.

View IFF analysis

Rheinmetall Aktiengesellschaft

RHM · Xetra

Market cap (USD)$83.3B
SectorIndustrials
CountryDE
Data as of2025-12-28
Moat score
71/ 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 Rheinmetall Aktiengesellschaft's moat claims, evidence, and risks.

View RHM analysis

Comparison highlights

  • Moat score gap: Rheinmetall Aktiengesellschaft leads (71 / 100 vs 59 / 100 for International Flavors & Fragrances Inc.).
  • Segment focus: International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. has 4 segments (31.2% in Food Ingredients); Rheinmetall Aktiengesellschaft has 4 segments (36.7% in Vehicle Systems).
  • Primary market structure: Competitive vs Oligopoly. Pricing power: Weak vs Moderate.
  • Moat breadth: International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. has 8 moat types across 3 domains; Rheinmetall Aktiengesellschaft has 6 across 3.

Primary market context

International Flavors & Fragrances Inc.

Food Ingredients

Market

Specialty food ingredients (texturizers, food protection, plant proteins, emulsifiers, sweeteners)

Geography

Global

Customer

B2B (food manufacturers)

Role

Ingredient supplier

Revenue share

31.2%

Rheinmetall Aktiengesellschaft

Vehicle Systems

Market

Armored and tactical wheeled/tracked military vehicles

Geography

Global (Europe/NATO weighted)

Customer

Government / military

Revenue share

36.7%

Side-by-side metrics

International Flavors & Fragrances Inc.
Rheinmetall Aktiengesellschaft
Ticker / Exchange
IFF - New York Stock Exchange
RHM - Xetra
Market cap (USD)
$17.4B
$83.3B
Sector
Materials
Industrials
HQ country
US
DE
Primary segment
Food Ingredients
Vehicle Systems
Market structure
Competitive
Oligopoly
Market share
n/a
n/a
HHI estimate
n/a
n/a
Pricing power
Weak
Moderate
Moat score
59 / 100
71 / 100
Moat domains
Demand, Legal, Supply
Legal, Demand, Supply
Last update
2025-12-29
2025-12-28

Moat coverage

Shared moat types

Design In QualificationSupply Chain Control

International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. strengths

IP Choke PointService Field NetworkCompliance AdvantageSwitching Costs GeneralCapex Knowhow ScaleScale Economies Unit Cost

Rheinmetall Aktiengesellschaft strengths

Government Contracting RelationshipsCapacity MoatLong Term ContractsDistribution Control

Segment mix

International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. segments

Full profile >

Taste

Oligopoly

23.9%

Food Ingredients

Competitive

31.2%

Health & Biosciences

Oligopoly

21.4%

Scent

Oligopoly

23.6%

Rheinmetall Aktiengesellschaft segments

Full profile >

Vehicle Systems

Oligopoly

36.7%

Weapon and Ammunition

Oligopoly

26.9%

Electronic Solutions

Oligopoly

16.7%

Power Systems (civilian; planned divestiture)

Competitive

19.7%

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.