Compare moats

AMD's FY2025 10-K documents real but bounded advantages: approximately 7,200 U.S. patents and roughly 18,900 patent matters worldwide, an outright claim that 'We are the market share leader in semi-custom game console products,' and gross margin of 50% on revenue up 34% to $34.6 billion. The same filing sets the ceiling: 'Some of our competitors may possess stronger market positions, larger customer bases, more design wins, and greater financial, sales, marketing, and distribution resources than us'; Nvidia is named 'the discrete GPU market share leader'; and AMD relies on TSMC 'for the production of all wafers for microprocessor and GPU products at 7 nanometer (nm) or smaller nodes.' Advantages that are genuine, contested, and dependent on a shared foundry are narrow, not wide.

source: sec.gov

The FY2026 10-K grounds a real but bounded defence. On the defence side: Item 1 states that in the manufacturing services market "there are significant barriers to entry in our existing and target markets, including lengthy sales cycles, the need to demonstrate complex precision optical and electro-mechanical engineering and manufacturing capabilities to a prospective customer and the ability to protect a customer's intellectual property," and that qualification of a program "may take three to six months or longer to complete." On the limiting side, the same filing shows the protection does not reach price: gross profit was 12.0% of revenues in FY2026 against 12.1% in FY2025 and 12.4% in FY2024 even as revenue rose 35.7% to $4.64 billion, four customers each exceeded 10% of revenue (Cisco 19.9%, NVIDIA 16.3%, Nokia 10.7%, Amazon 10.5%), and "reliance on a small number of customers gives those customers substantial purchasing power and leverage in negotiating contracts with us." Sales are made on "individual purchase orders that have short lead times and are subject to revision or cancellation," so the qualified program is sticky while the contract is not.

source: sec.gov

The FY2025 10-K asserts a durable competitive position across essentially all of the revenue base: for Electrical Americas and Electrical Global it states 'Eaton has a strong competitive position in these segments and, with respect to many products, is considered among the market leaders'; it repeats that language verbatim for Aerospace ('industry-leading portfolio', 'considered among the market leaders'); and for Vehicle it states 'Eaton is considered among the market leaders in this segment.' That is a claimed leadership position in four of the five reported segments, on a base of $27.4 billion of 2025 revenue, ~97,000 employees and customers in 180 countries, from a company founded in 1911. The rating is tempered rather than lifted higher by the filing's own admissions - price is named among the principal methods of competition in the Electrical, Vehicle and eMobility segments, and the risk factors flag 'newly competitive market players' and that 'our positions may also be impacted by new entrants into our product or regional markets.'

source: sec.gov

The FY2025 10-K locates the durable asset in design IP rather than manufacturing: 'We rely on contracts and intellectual property rights to protect our products and technologies from unauthorized third-party copying and use,' with approximately 7,200 U.S. patents and about 18,900 patent matters worldwide spanning x86 EPYC/Ryzen CPUs, CDNA/RDNA graphics and the Versal/Zynq adaptive-SoC families, and it credits customer wins to 'our broad IP portfolio and leadership in design, integration and advanced packaging.' It is explicitly not cost_scale: AMD is fabless and 'utilize[s] Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSMC) for the production of wafers' — the same leading-edge foundry its merchant competitors use, so no manufacturing-scale advantage accrues to it.

source: sec.gov

The 10-K locates the stickiness in qualification rather than in patents or scale. Customers "do not purchase our services until they qualify the services and satisfactorily complete factory audits and vendor evaluations"; qualification "may take three to six months or longer"; production is transferred "copy-exact: the setup of a production process identical to the one used by our customer"; and the filing's own experience of changing a component source is that it "resulted in our customers or their end customers requiring requalification and validation of components, a process that can often be lengthy and has negatively impacted the timing of our revenue" — the same friction a customer would face moving the program elsewhere. The filing rules out an IP-based moat itself: "Historically, patents have not played a significant role in the protection of our proprietary rights," and any process improvement developed for a customer's product is "immediately assigned to that customer." The Thailand cost base is a genuine advantage but the filing warns it is not durable on its own — "Wage increases may impact our ability to sustain our competitive advantage and may reduce our profit margin."

source: sec.gov

The filing's own description of how it competes points at designed-in and qualified positions rather than IP or pure scale. In Aerospace the principal methods of competition are listed as 'total cost of ownership, product and system performance, quality, design engineering capabilities, and timely delivery' - price is conspicuously absent, and 20% of segment sales go to three large aircraft OEMs, i.e. platform-level content that is qualified in and hard to displace mid-programme. In the Electrical segments 'customer service and support' sits alongside performance and technology as a method of competition, and 22% of sales go to six large customers. Intangibles_ip is explicitly ruled out as the primary source by the company itself: 'management believes that the loss or expiration of any single intellectual property right would not in and of itself have a material effect on Eaton's consolidated financial statements or its business segments.' Scale is real but secondary - the filing notes raw materials are bought 'from many suppliers' and 'under normal circumstances, the Company has no difficulty obtaining its raw materials,' which reads as supply resilience rather than a cost advantage claim.

source: sec.gov

The FY2025 10-K itself places AMD behind the pace-setter in its two most important markets: 'Our principal competitor in the supply of discrete graphics is Nvidia, who is the discrete GPU market share leader,' and the risk factors state Nvidia 'leverages its market position in data center GPU, financial resources, and proprietary software ecosystem to promote its systems and influences customers who do business with us.' AMD is nonetheless executing 'an annual cadence of leadership for AMD Instinct solutions' and has won gigawatt-scale commitments (OpenAI, 6 GW) — following fast and closely, not setting the pace.

source: sec.gov

The leadership claim in the filing is the company's own qualitative assessment: "We believe we are a leader in manufacturing products for the optical communications market," and, on breadth of process technology, "Based on our experience with customers and our qualitative assessment of our capabilities, we believe we provide a broader array of process technologies to the optics industry than any other manufacturing services provider." The same Item 1 names a crowded field against it — "Benchmark Electronics, Inc., Celestica Inc., InnoLight Technology (Suzhou) Ltd., Jabil Inc., Sanmina Corporation, Venture Corporation Limited and Eoptolink Technology Inc., Ltd., as well as the internal manufacturing capabilities of our customers" — and no independent share ranking is given, so the record supports front-of-field standing but not sole primacy.

source: sec.gov

The filing's leadership language is plural and hedged, not exclusive: 'considered among the market leaders' for the Electrical segments (qualified further by 'with respect to many products'), 'among the market leaders' for Aerospace, and 'Eaton is considered among the market leaders' for Vehicle. Nowhere does the 10-K claim to be the single leader in any market, and it never names a competitor or cites a market-share figure. 'Among the market leaders' maps to co_leader, not clear_leader.

source: sec.gov

FY2025 gross margin was 50%, up from 49% in 2024 per the 10-K — healthy and improving — but the same filing attributes average-selling-price pressure to competitors: Intel 'uses its microprocessor market position to price its products aggressively and target our customers and channel partners with special incentives. These aggressive activities have reduced and may reduce our unit sales and average selling prices for many of our products'. Pricing power is real but contested.

source: sec.gov

Gross profit was 12.0% of revenues in FY2026, 12.1% in FY2025 and 12.4% in FY2024 — flat to down across three years in which revenue grew from $2.88 billion to $4.64 billion — and the FY2026 increase in gross profit is attributed to "sales volume and product mix," not price. Item 1 says so directly: "we expect the prices we charge for our manufactured products to decrease over time (partly as a result of competitive market forces)," with the offset coming from cycle-time, mix, yield and material-cost work rather than from rate. The risk factors add that customer consolidation gives buyers "increased leverage that may result in, among other things, decreases in our average selling prices," and that new competition "could result in price reductions for our services, reduced gross profit margins or loss of market share."

source: sec.gov

The filing describes pass-through ability that is real but bounded. On input costs: 'While we strive to recoup these increased costs through our pricing, product modifications or other mediating responses, if we are unable to do so without compromising the competitive position of our products and services, our results could continue to be impacted by this trend.' On macro conditions: 'our responses to mitigate the impact of these conditions, such as potential price increases, could negatively impact our market share or relationships with distributors or customers.' On tariffs: 'potential price increases or other mitigating efforts could negatively impact market share or otherwise increase the risk of customer disputes.' Price is also listed as a principal method of competition in Electrical Americas, Electrical Global, Vehicle and eMobility - so raising price is described by the company as costing share. Aerospace is the exception, where price is not among the listed methods of competition. The filing states no gross-margin trend in Item 1 or Item 1A.

source: sec.gov

A fabless merchant-silicon designer sitting one layer above the foundries: the FY2025 10-K states AMD relies on TSMC 'for the production of all wafers for microprocessor and GPU products at 7 nanometer (nm) or smaller nodes' and primarily on GLOBALFOUNDRIES above 7 nm, with packaging and test performed by Asia-Pacific ATMP partners — so its cost, supply and cadence are inherited from partners it does not control.

A contract manufacturer sitting between optical components and the network and AI-datacenter OEMs whose brands ship the finished box. FY2026 revenue is 47.9% data center, 33.3% communications infrastructure and 18.8% automotive, industrial and other markets (FY2025: 46.2% / 30.7% / 23.1%), with Cisco, NVIDIA, Nokia and Amazon each above 10% of revenue. Fabrinet also integrates one layer down, designing and fabricating its own customized optics and glass — crystals, ferrules, precision glass tubing — at Fuzhou, China and Mountain Lakes, New Jersey, both for its own assemblies and for the merchant market, while volume manufacturing runs from the Pinehurst and Chonburi campuses in Thailand.

Upstream electrical infrastructure into AI compute: Eaton supplies the power path from grid to rack, and the 10-K makes that link itself - data center is the first market it names, it cites 'momentum in the data center and utility end markets,' and its 2025-26 acquisitions target hyperscale/colocation modular buildings, solid-state transformers and liquid cooling 'from the chip to the grid.' Its exposure to AI is as a supplier to AI buildout, not as an AI technology vendor; the filing's only AI discussion of its own products is a risk factor about keeping pace with AI internally and about generative-AI compliance risk, which is incidental to the thesis.

• AMD EPYC server CPUs Top 3 · Moderate source: sec.gov
• AMD Helios rack-scale AI systems Unknown · Moderate source: globenewswire.com
• AMD Instinct data-center GPUs (MI350 / MI450 series) Challenger · Moderate source: sec.gov
• AMD Ryzen client CPUs and APUs (incl. Ryzen AI) Challenger · Moderate source: sec.gov
• FPGAs and adaptive SoCs (Versal / Zynq / UltraScale+) Top 3 · Moderate source: sec.gov
• Radeon discrete GPUs (RX and PRO) Challenger · Moderate source: sec.gov
• Semi-custom game-console SoCs Leader · Deep source: sec.gov

• Automotive and medical sensors Niche · Moderate source: sec.gov
• Communications infrastructure optical products Top 3 · Deep source: sec.gov
• Customized optics and glass Challenger · Moderate source: sec.gov
• Data center optical modules and transceivers Top 3 · Deep source: sec.gov
• Industrial laser manufacturing Niche · Moderate source: sec.gov

• Aerospace Top 3 · Deep source: sec.gov
• Electrical Americas Top 3 · Moderate source: sec.gov
• Electrical Global Top 3 · Moderate source: sec.gov
• Vehicle Top 3 · Moderate source: sec.gov
• eMobility Unknown · Low source: sec.gov

Editorial prior, not backtested.

see exactly how it voted →

Editorial prior, not backtested.

see exactly how it voted →

Editorial prior, not backtested.

see exactly how it voted →