VOL. XCIV, NO. 247

★ WIDE MOAT STOCKS COMPARISON ★

NO ADVICE

Wednesday, December 31, 2025

Stock Comparison

Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. vs Philip Morris International Inc.

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

Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.

MMC · New York Stock Exchange

Market cap (USD)
SectorFinancials
CountryUS
Data as of2025-12-31
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 Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.'s moat claims, evidence, and risks.

View MMC analysis

Philip Morris International Inc.

PM · New York Stock Exchange

Market cap (USD)
SectorConsumer
CountryUS
Data as of2025-12-31
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 Philip Morris International Inc.'s moat claims, evidence, and risks.

View PM analysis

Comparison highlights

  • Moat score gap: Philip Morris International Inc. leads (84 / 100 vs 65 / 100 for Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.).
  • Segment focus: Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. has 2 segments (62.8% in Risk and Insurance Services); Philip Morris International Inc. has 3 segments (61.3% in Combustible Tobacco).
  • Primary market structure: Oligopoly vs Oligopoly. Pricing power: Moderate vs Strong.
  • Moat breadth: Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. has 5 moat types across 3 domains; Philip Morris International Inc. has 6 across 3.

Primary market context

Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.

Risk and Insurance Services

Market

Insurance brokerage, risk advisory, and reinsurance brokerage/services

Geography

Global

Customer

Enterprises, public entities, associations, and individuals (via broker/agent channels)

Role

Intermediary + advisor (insurance/reinsurance market intermediary)

Revenue share

62.8%

Philip Morris International Inc.

Combustible Tobacco

Market

International combustible tobacco (primarily cigarettes)

Geography

Global (primarily ex-U.S.)

Customer

Adult smokers; distributors/wholesalers and retail channels

Role

Branded manufacturer and distributor

Revenue share

61.3%

Side-by-side metrics

Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
Philip Morris International Inc.
Ticker / Exchange
MMC - New York Stock Exchange
PM - New York Stock Exchange
Market cap (USD)
n/a
n/a
Sector
Financials
Consumer
HQ country
US
US
Primary segment
Risk and Insurance Services
Combustible Tobacco
Market structure
Oligopoly
Oligopoly
Market share
n/a
25.3% (reported)
HHI estimate
n/a
n/a
Pricing power
Moderate
Strong
Moat score
65 / 100
84 / 100
Moat domains
Supply, Demand, Legal
Demand, Supply, Legal
Last update
2025-12-31
2025-12-31

Moat coverage

Shared moat types

Brand TrustCompliance Advantage

Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. strengths

Service Field NetworkSwitching Costs GeneralData Workflow Lockin

Philip Morris International Inc. strengths

Distribution ControlInstalled Base ConsumablesIP Choke PointRegulated Standards Pipe

Segment mix

Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. segments

Full profile >

Risk and Insurance Services

Oligopoly

62.8%

Consulting

Competitive

37.2%

Philip Morris International Inc. segments

Full profile >

Combustible Tobacco

Oligopoly

61.3%

Smoke-Free Products

Oligopoly

37.8%

Wellness & Healthcare

Competitive

0.9%

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.