VOL. XCIV, NO. 247

★ WIDE MOAT STOCKS COMPARISON ★

NO ADVICE

Wednesday, December 31, 2025

Stock Comparison

Nasdaq, Inc. vs U.S. Bancorp

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

Nasdaq, Inc.

NDAQ · NASDAQ

Market cap (USD)
SectorFinancials
CountryUS
Data as of2025-12-31
Moat score
76/ 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 Nasdaq, Inc.'s moat claims, evidence, and risks.

View NDAQ analysis

U.S. Bancorp

USB · New York Stock Exchange

Market cap (USD)$85.5B
SectorFinancials
CountryUS
Data as of2025-12-23
Moat score
62/ 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 U.S. Bancorp's moat claims, evidence, and risks.

View USB analysis

Comparison highlights

  • Moat score gap: Nasdaq, Inc. leads (76 / 100 vs 62 / 100 for U.S. Bancorp).
  • Segment focus: Nasdaq, Inc. has 3 segments (42.4% in Capital Access Platforms); U.S. Bancorp has 3 segments (42.8% in Wealth, Corporate, Commercial and Institutional Banking).
  • Primary market structure: Oligopoly vs Competitive. Pricing power: Moderate vs Moderate.
  • Moat breadth: Nasdaq, Inc. has 9 moat types across 5 domains; U.S. Bancorp has 8 across 4.

Primary market context

Nasdaq, Inc.

Capital Access Platforms

Market

Issuer and investor solutions: listings, index licensing, market data, and investment analytics/workflow platforms

Geography

Global (with major exposure to U.S. and Nordic/Baltic markets)

Customer

Public/private companies (issuers), asset managers, institutional investors, data subscribers

Role

Listing venue + index administrator/licensor + data/analytics provider

Revenue share

42.4%

U.S. Bancorp

Wealth, Corporate, Commercial and Institutional Banking

Market

U.S. corporate, commercial, institutional and wealth banking & advisory services

Geography

United States

Customer

Commercial, institutional, government and wealth clients

Role

Bank / financial intermediary

Revenue share

42.8%

Side-by-side metrics

Nasdaq, Inc.
U.S. Bancorp
Ticker / Exchange
NDAQ - NASDAQ
USB - New York Stock Exchange
Market cap (USD)
n/a
$85.5B
Sector
Financials
Financials
HQ country
US
US
Primary segment
Capital Access Platforms
Wealth, Corporate, Commercial and Institutional Banking
Market structure
Oligopoly
Competitive
Market share
80%-84% (reported)
n/a
HHI estimate
n/a
n/a
Pricing power
Moderate
Moderate
Moat score
76 / 100
62 / 100
Moat domains
Legal, Network, Supply, Demand, Financial
Demand, Supply, Legal, Financial
Last update
2025-12-31
2025-12-23

Moat coverage

Shared moat types

Physical Network DensityData Workflow LockinCompliance Advantage

Nasdaq, Inc. strengths

Concession LicenseTwo Sided NetworkBrand TrustDe Facto StandardBenchmark Pricing PowerLong Term Contracts

U.S. Bancorp strengths

Scope EconomiesHabit DefaultCost Of Capital AdvantageScale Economies Unit CostSuite Bundling

Segment mix

Nasdaq, Inc. segments

Full profile >

Market Services

Competitive

21.9%

Capital Access Platforms

Oligopoly

42.4%

Financial Technology

Competitive

35.6%

U.S. Bancorp segments

Full profile >

Wealth, Corporate, Commercial and Institutional Banking

Competitive

42.8%

Consumer and Business Banking

Oligopoly

32.5%

Payment Services

Oligopoly

24.7%

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.