Compare moats
Up to three covered companies, band by band. Every call is a curated editorial judgment, never a disclosed figure — and every band carries its cited basis.
| Apple | Celestica | |
|---|---|---|
| Moat rating | narrow Argued, not assumed. The FY2025 10-K does evidence a real moat in margin: total gross margin percentage rose 44.1% (2023) to 46.2% (2024) to 46.9% (2025) in markets the same filing describes as characterised by 'aggressive price competition, downward pressure on gross margins.' But the filing bounds the claim itself: it concedes 'a minority market share in the global smartphone, personal computer, tablet and wearables markets,' it discloses no retention, active-device or installed-base figure anywhere (its only 'large installed bases of active devices' reference describes competitors), and it discloses that both of the highest-margin layers are already being cut down by force -- Apple is 'currently subject to a court order preventing it from imposing any commission or fee on certain purchases' on the U.S. App Store storefront, has had to open 'alternative methods of distribution for iOS and iPadOS apps, alternative payment processing' in the EU, and warns that a reversal on appeal in the Google search case could impose remedies 'prohibiting Google from offering the Company commercial terms for search distribution.' A moat that earns 46.9% gross margin but whose most profitable layer is being narrowed by two courts and a regulator is narrow, not wide. | narrow The FY2025 10-K shows a real but bounded edge. On the durable side, Celestica is increasingly engaged as an ODM: its HPS business co-designs (JDM) or fully designs the platforms it builds, it states 'We have hardware and software patents that are integral to our HPS business' and that 'our increased R&D activities have resulted in the growth of our dependence on our patent portfolio', and HPS reached 41% of total revenue in 2025 (from 21% in 2023) at a margin profile the filing says is higher than traditional EMS work. On the limiting side, the same filing concedes 'Some of our competitors have greater scale and provide a broader range of services than we provide', the master supply agreements 'do not typically guarantee a particular level of business or fixed pricing', work is won 'on a program-by-program basis', and the top 10 customers were 79% of 2025 revenue with three customers individually at 32%, 14% and 12%. An advantage that must be re-won each program against greater-scale rivals, for a handful of buyers who can in-source, is narrow rather than wide. |
| Moat type | switching costs The 10-K locates the durable advantage in an integrated stack and its third-party ecosystem, not in patents: it names 'a strong third-party software and accessories ecosystem' among the principal competitive factors and states the Company 'designs and develops nearly the entire solution for its products, including the hardware, operating system, numerous software applications and related services,' while explicitly disclaiming IP as the source -- 'No single intellectual property right is solely responsible for protecting the Company's products and services' and the Company 'relies primarily on the innovative skills, technical competence and marketing abilities of its personnel.' The remedies now in force confirm the diagnosis negatively: the same filing describes being required to permit alternative distribution and alternative payment processing in the EU and being barred from charging commission on certain linked-out purchases in the U.S. -- remedies aimed squarely at lowering the cost of leaving Apple's rails, which is what a switching-cost moat is. | switching costs Cost scale is explicitly not the source: the 10-K states competitors have greater scale and a broader service range. What does bind a customer is the design-in. Within HPS, Celestica 'design[s] and manufacture[s] products, either as customized solutions, white box solutions or under Joint Design and Manufacturing (JDM) engagements', holds 'hardware and software patents that are integral to our HPS business', and delivers 'complete platform solutions... integration and orchestration of various technologies into rack-scale designs'. The filing adds that 'a majority of these supply agreements also require the customer to purchase unused inventory that we have purchased to fulfill that customer's forecasted manufacturing demand', a contractual cost of walking away mid-program. Moving a qualified, jointly designed rack-scale platform to another ODM means requalifying a design Celestica partly owns, which is friction the commodity assembly work does not carry. |
| Leadership | fast follower Apple leads on integration and margin rather than on units, and the filing says so: it 'has a minority market share in the global smartphone, personal computer, tablet and wearables markets,' while competitors have 'broad product lines, low-priced products, large installed bases of active devices, and large customer bases.' On the AI axis that defines this graph, Apple is following rather than leading -- it now licenses a rival's frontier models to power Siri (see the Apple Intelligence / Siri row and its citation) while pushing its own advantage down into silicon. | at parity The 10-K claims no share leadership. It states plainly that 'Some of our competitors have greater scale and provide a broader range of services than we provide', and lists Hon Hai, Flex, Jabil, Sanmina, Benchmark and Plexus in EMS plus Quanta, Wiwynn and Accton in ODM. Its stated competitive advantage is execution quality, not position: 'our track record in advanced manufacturing capabilities, design and engineering, quality, delivery, managing complexity and responsiveness'. It is also winning: CCS revenue grew 42% to $9.19 billion and total revenue reached $12.39 billion in FY2025. Competing on comparable terms with a field it neither leads nor trails is parity. |
| Pricing power | strong The 10-K's own gross-margin table: total gross margin percentage 44.1% (2023) to 46.2% (2024) to 46.9% (2025), with Services at 75.4% versus Products at 36.8%, and iPhone net sales rising 'due to higher net sales of Pro models' -- mix moving up, not down. Held against the filing's own hedge that 'gross margins will be subject to volatility and downward pressure,' the realised trend is the stronger evidence. | weak The filing describes price as contested by contract, not set by Celestica: master supply agreements 'do not typically guarantee a particular level of business or fixed pricing', 'Some of these agreements require us to provide specific price reductions to our customers over the term of the contracts', and the Item 1A risk factor 'We operate in an industry comprised of numerous competitors and aggressive pricing dynamics' says competitors may be 'willing to, or able to make sales or provide services at lower margins than we do'. The site's fundamentals show gross margin at 12.06% in FY2025, up from 8.96% in FY2022, 9.47% in FY2023 and 10.72% in FY2024 — improving, but still low double digits, and the filing attributes the higher margin to mix (HPS is 'higher margin profile than our traditional EMS businesses' and went from 21% to 41% of revenue over the same span) rather than to raising prices. |
| Summary | Apple's moat is usually asserted through the ecosystem; the FY2025 10-K neither quantifies nor claims retention, so the evidence has to be read elsewhere in the filing. Where it does show is mix and margin: Services reached $109.2B of $416.2B net sales (+14%) at a 75.4% gross margin against 36.8% on Products, so 26% of revenue delivered $82.3B of the $195.2B total gross margin, and iPhone grew 'due to higher net sales of Pro models.' That profit concentration is also the vulnerability the filing itself flags: Apple 'earns revenue from licensing arrangements with Google LLC and other companies to offer their search services on the Company's platforms,' arrangements 'currently subject to government investigations and legal proceedings' after Google was found to have violated U.S. antitrust laws on August 5, 2024 and the D.C. District Court ordered remedies on September 2, 2025 -- with the 10-K warning that a reversal on appeal could impose DOJ's proposed remedies 'prohibiting Google from offering the Company commercial terms for search distribution,' which 'could materially adversely affect the Company's ability to earn revenue from such licensing arrangements.' Apple never discloses the size of that payment in the filing -- the concentration is admitted but not measured. Alongside it, the App Store toll has already been reduced in both jurisdictions. What is not in dispute is the vertical integration: Apple designs the silicon and now the cellular modem, and uses 'custom components available from only one source.' Read together: a genuine, margin-visible switching-cost moat around an integrated stack, with its two most profitable layers under active legal reduction. | Celestica is a contract design and manufacturing company that has been pulled up the value chain by the AI data-center build-out. Its CCS segment, which builds networking switches, optical systems, data center racks, servers and storage for hyperscalers and other cloud and AI service providers, grew 42% to $9.19 billion in 2025, and Communications alone went from 33% of revenue in 2023 to 57% in 2025. The part of that business with a defensible position is HPS, where Celestica is the designer rather than the assembler: HPS revenue rose 81% in 2025 to 41% of the total, carries a higher margin than traditional EMS work, and rests on a patent portfolio the filing calls integral to the business. That design-in position is what separates it from pure build-to-print capacity. What caps the moat is the customer side of the ledger. The 10-K describes an industry where 'aggressive pricing is a common business dynamic', where master supply agreements guarantee neither volume nor price and some of them 'require us to provide specific price reductions to our customers over the term of the contracts', and where the company bids program by program against Hon Hai, Flex, Jabil, Sanmina, Benchmark and Plexus on the EMS side and Quanta, Wiwynn and Accton on the ODM side, plus Arista and Cisco where a customer might buy an off-the-shelf switch instead. Revenue concentration has tightened as the AI mix grew, from 64% of revenue in the top 10 customers in 2023 to 79% in 2025, with a single customer at 32%. The company also notes its HPS offerings can compete with a customer's own hardware, which may 'negatively impact our relationship with, or result in a loss of business from, such customers'. So the profile is a genuine but program-scoped advantage, held by a company whose fortunes turn on a few buyers' capital plans. |
| Chain position | Applications-layer name in the AI chain: the 10-K describes designing 'nearly the entire solution' and using custom components 'available from only one source,' making Apple a large, concentrated buyer of leading-edge silicon rather than a supplier of AI compute to anyone else. | Celestica sits between component suppliers and the hyperscale buyer, and owns the design only in part of that span. It 'procure[s] substantially all of our materials and components on behalf of our customers pursuant to individual purchase orders that are generally short-term in nature', then designs, assembles, integrates at rack scale and tests the switches, optical systems, servers, storage and data-center racks that cloud, AI and enterprise customers deploy. In ATS it is a pure EMS contractor that does 'not generally collaborate with ATS customers on the design of the solutions we manufacture'; in HPS it is the designer of record or a joint designer. The economics follow that split: the segment where it holds design IP is the one with the higher margin profile. |
| Products (share / barrier) |
|
|
| Long-horizon vote | +0.11 at weight 0.20 · swarm bullish Editorial prior, not backtested. | -0.01 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. |