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 | TE Connectivity | Hewlett Packard Enterprise | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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's own Competition section undercuts any claim of insulation: 'The industries in which we operate are highly competitive, and we compete with thousands of companies that range from large multinational corporations to local manufacturers', competition is 'generally based on breadth of product offering, product innovation, price, quality, delivery, and service', and TE has 'experienced, and expect[s] to continue to experience, downward pressure on prices'. The same filing explicitly disclaims IP as the basis of its position: 'we do not believe that our competitive position or our operations are dependent upon or would be materially impacted by any single patent or group of related patents.' What TE does hold is durable rather than absolute — it calls itself 'one of the leading providers of advanced automobile connectivity solutions', its Industrial segment 'a leading supplier', and it converted that position into rising profitability across the same filing's three income statements (gross margin 31.5% of net sales in FY2023, 34.4% in FY2024, 35.2% in FY2025). A position that earns expanding margins into admitted price pressure is an advantage; one held against thousands of competitors and no decisive patent is not a wide one. | narrow The FY2025 10-K describes strong but bounded advantages. On the positive side it cites ~21,000 issued and pending patents as of October 31, 2025, Hewlett Packard Labs research in AI, networking and fabrics, novel accelerators and quantum computing, a claimed 'long-term sustained market leadership in supercomputing', a global manufacturing services footprint, and a large channel/partner ecosystem. Against that, the filing names a crowded set of large incumbents in every segment (Dell, Super Micro, Cisco, Lenovo in servers; Broadcom, Cisco, Dell, IBM, NetApp, Nutanix, Pure Storage plus AWS/Google Cloud/Azure in hybrid cloud; Cisco, Arista, Nokia, Huawei, Ciena, NVIDIA, Extreme, Palo Alto, Fortinet, Zscaler and others in networking), concedes competition from 'generically branded or white-box manufacturers' in certain regions, states 'we anticipate that we will have to continue to adjust prices on many of our products and services to stay competitive', and adds that 'no single patent is in itself essential to our company as a whole or to any of our business segments'. That is a durable franchise, not a wide one. |
| 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 The FY2025 10-K locates the advantage at the customer, not in patents. It describes 'close working relationships with many of our customers' whose 'relationships with them typically date back many years', and co-development as the mechanism: 'By working with our customers in developing new products and technologies, we believe we can identify and act on trends and leverage knowledge about next-generation technology across our products.' Roughly 75% of fiscal 2025 net sales were direct to manufacturers rather than through distribution, and the Transportation segment's products 'must withstand harsh conditions' — parts engineered in with the customer and built to survive the application, so the position sits inside the customer's design rather than in a purchase order. The filing rules the alternative out in its own words on intellectual property, so intangibles_ip is not the source; the 'thousands of companies' in Competition rules out efficient_scale. | intangibles ip The filing's own competitive-advantage language is repeated near-verbatim for both the Server and Networking segments: 'our broad end-to-end solutions portfolio, supported by our strong intellectual property portfolio and research and development capabilities, coupled with our global reach and partner ecosystem.' It grounds that in ~21,000 worldwide issued and pending patents, decades of large-scale infrastructure engineering (it names fanless direct liquid cooling as an example), and Hewlett Packard Labs. Switching costs are the natural alternative given GreenLake consumption contracts, but the filing explicitly disclaims lock-in as a strategy: 'the cloud experience should be open and seamless across all our customers' clouds, rather than requiring customers to be locked into a cloud stack.' Accumulated engineering IP and brand, not customer captivity, is the source the document actually asserts. |
| 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. | co leader The FY2025 10-K claims leadership in qualified form and then names the peers who contest it. Transportation Solutions 'is a leader in connectivity and sensor technologies' and TE is 'one of the leading providers of advanced automobile connectivity solutions' — one of, not the — while the segment's 'major competitors include Yazaki, Aptiv, Sumitomo, Sensata, Honeywell, Molex, and Amphenol'. Industrial Solutions 'is a leading supplier of products that connect and distribute power, data, and signals' and 'competes primarily against Amphenol, Hubbell, Carlisle Companies, Integer Holdings, Molex, Omron, JST, and Korea Electric Terminal (KET)'. Amphenol and Molex appear on both lists, so TE shares the top of the interconnect market rather than owning it. | co leader The filing claims specific leadership only in narrow places — 'long-term sustained market leadership in supercomputing' and 'AI-native networking leadership' after the Juniper Networks acquisition — while describing every market it serves as 'characterized by strong competition among major corporations with long-established positions and a large number of new and rapidly growing firms.' It names itself alongside, not above, Dell, Super Micro, Cisco and Lenovo in data-center infrastructure and alongside Cisco, Arista, Nokia, Huawei and NVIDIA in networking, and frames AI data-center networking as a market it 'aims to capture' rather than one it holds. One of a handful of scaled incumbents, not the clear leader. |
| 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. | moderate The FY2025 10-K states both halves plainly: TE has 'experienced, and expect[s] to continue to experience, downward pressure on prices. However, as a result of increased costs and tariffs, certain of our businesses implemented price increases in recent years.' Pass-through, not price-setting. The realised result is margin expansion rather than erosion — gross margin of 31.5% of net sales in FY2023, 34.4% in FY2024 and 35.2% in FY2025 per the same filing's income statements, and 36.5% ($5,319M on $14,573M) for the nine months to 26 June 2026 versus 35.3% a year earlier, with Q3 FY2026 GAAP operating margin of 19%, per the 22 July 2026 results release (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1385157/000110465926085589/tel-20260722xex99d1.htm). Strong would require pricing that leads rather than follows cost; weak is contradicted by three years of expanding gross margin. | weak The 10-K is unusually explicit on this. It states 'We face aggressive price competition'; that competitors with a greater presence in lower-cost markets or better component allocation 'may be able to offer lower prices than we are able to offer'; that 'to maintain our competitive position, from time-to-time we take pricing actions to offer heavier than normal discounts or elect not to pass on cost increases to customers ... which has had and could have a negative impact on our financial results'; and that 'we anticipate that we will have to continue to adjust prices on many of our products and services to stay competitive.' Its AI-systems orders are called out as 'generally subject to intense competition and pricing pressure, which can have an impact on our margins', and a separate risk factor warns that failure to sustain gross margins would reduce profitability. The filing states no gross-margin trend figure in these sections; the qualitative direction it does state is defensive. |
| 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. | TE Connectivity sells the connectors, terminals, sensors and cable-protection parts that, in its own framing, 'enable the distribution of power, signal, and data' — a component vendor, never a system or compute vendor. The FY2025 10-K puts the two reportable segments, Transportation Solutions (54% of net sales) and Industrial Solutions (46%), against a combined served market it estimates at roughly $200 billion, which tells you immediately that no single share number governs this business: the filing discloses no market share, says 'no single customer accounted for a significant amount of our net sales in fiscal 2025, 2024, or 2023', and states that because TE is 'not organized by product or service, it is not practicable to disclose net sales by product or service'. The defensible part is entrenchment. Parts get designed in with the customer and then qualified to survive automotive, aerospace, subsea and grid conditions; TE sells about 75% of net sales direct into ~130 countries; relationships 'typically date back many years'. That is a switching-cost moat, and the filing is unusually candid that it is not a patent moat — no single patent or group of patents is material to its competitive position. The limit is equally plain in the filing: highly competitive industries, thousands of competitors, and persistent downward price pressure, with Amphenol and Molex named as competitors in BOTH segments and Yazaki, Aptiv and Sumitomo heading the Transportation segment's competitor list. The evidence that the moat is nonetheless working is margin plus mix. Gross margin ran 31.5% / 34.4% / 35.2% of net sales across FY2023-FY2025, and in the nine months to 26 June 2026 gross margin was $5,319M on $14,573M of net sales (36.5%) against $4,419M on $12,513M (35.3%) a year earlier, while Q3 FY2026 GAAP operating margin was 19% and orders hit a record $5.7 billion, up 27% year over year. Growth has also rotated: digital data networks grew 34.2% in Q3 FY2026 (34.0% organic) and 48.8% over nine months, with the CEO naming 'increased momentum in AI in both the data center and across the broader energy infrastructure' — while sensors, an end market for which the 10-K makes no leadership claim at all, shrank 2.8% organically in the quarter. Narrow, not wide: a real toll on other people's platforms, collected under admitted price pressure. | HPE's FY2025 10-K positions the company around three stated megatrends — networking, cloud and AI — delivered through five segments (Server, Hybrid Cloud, Networking, Financial Services, Corporate Investments and Other), with Server products and Networking products each exceeding 10% of consolidated net revenue in fiscal 2025. Its defensibility rests on an accumulated intellectual-property and engineering base (~21,000 issued and pending patents as of October 31, 2025), a claimed sustained leadership position in supercomputing via HPE Cray EX, a full networking stack acquired with Juniper Networks in July 2025 spanning campus, data-center switching, WAN routing and SASE, and a captive Financial Services arm that funds consumption-based deployments. The same filing bounds that moat: it warns of 'aggressive price competition', notes that AI systems have historically been bought 'primarily by a small number of larger customers and cloud service providers' and that such orders are 'generally subject to intense competition and pricing pressure, which can have an impact on our margins', and lists a long roster of well-capitalized competitors in every market it serves. |
| 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. | TE is an upstream component supplier to the AI build-out, not a participant in compute. It sells 'connectivity and sensor solutions [that] enable the distribution of power, signal, and data to advance next-generation transportation, energy networks, automated factories, data centers enabling artificial intelligence', about 75% of it direct to manufacturers across roughly 130 countries. AI exposure runs through one end market: digital data networks was 28% of Industrial Solutions, and Industrial Solutions was 46% of fiscal 2025 net sales — so the datacenter line is a minority of a company still 54% transportation. That minority is where the growth now is: digital data networks net sales rose 34.2% in Q3 FY2026 and 48.8% over the nine months, and energy rose 34.4% in the quarter, the CEO tying both to AI momentum 'in both the data center and across the broader energy infrastructure' (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1385157/000110465926085589/tel-20260722xex99d1.htm). | Downstream AI-infrastructure integrator and networking supplier: HPE assembles and sells the AI servers and rack-scale systems (ProLiant, Cray EX/XD), turnkey AI-factory stacks (HPE Private Cloud AI) and the data-center/AI networking fabric that sit between silicon vendors and enterprise, sovereign and cloud-service-provider buyers. The AI exposure is central rather than incidental — the filing's strategy section, a dedicated AI risk factor and the AI-systems order-concentration disclosure all address it — but HPE is a buyer of accelerators and components, not a designer of them, and it names NVIDIA as a competitor in networking rather than only as a supplier. |
| Products (share / barrier) |
|
|
|
| Long-horizon vote | +0.11 at weight 0.20 · swarm bullish Editorial prior, not backtested. | +0.13 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. | +0.05 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. |