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.
| Applied Digital | GitLab | Super Micro Computer | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moat rating | none The FY2026 10-K (filed 2026-07-29) shows contracted revenue, not a demonstrated competitive edge. About 1,410 MW is leased under 15-year take-or-pay, non-cancellable base terms worth about $36.2 billion, but only about 100 MW of the roughly 1.5 GW that is contracted and either operating or under construction was operating and earning revenue at May 31, 2026, and Item 1A says "lessees may have the right to terminate applicable leases if there are significant delays in construction." Item 1A also concedes "We do not have the resources to compete with larger providers of similar products or services at this time," and the Competition section names 13 power-advantaged developers the company competes with. Signed leases give revenue visibility, but the filing does not show a durable advantage. | narrow The FY2026 10-K (year ended 2026-01-31) shows real expansion inside the installed base: 118% Dollar-Based Net Retention, Base Customers up to 10,682 from 9,893, customers above $100,000 of ARR up to 1,456 from 1,229, and $1.0 million ARR customers "to 155 from 123, an increase of 26%". But the filing concedes "limited barriers to entry" and names "Microsoft Corporation, which owns GitHub" as principal competitor. Retention decelerates (130% FY2024, 123% FY2025, 118% FY2026), and since DBNR is reported "on a threshold basis of 130%," the FY2024 figure is a cap and the slide is steeper than it looks. Narrow, not wide: expansion must be re-won against a bundled hyperscaler. | narrow The FY2026 10-K describes a genuine but bounded advantage. On the asset side the filing claims a modular Server Building Block Solutions architecture, over 3,500 R&D employees, in-house design control over many sub-systems, and that Supermicro believes it is 'the only major server, storage, and accelerated compute platform vendor that designs, develops, and manufactures a significant portion of its systems in the United States.' Against that, the same filing calls its market 'highly competitive, rapidly evolving,' concedes that 'most of our competitors have longer operating histories, significantly greater resources, greater name recognition, or deeper market penetration,' reports intensified competition from 'predominantly Asia-based' entrants 'leading to pricing pressure,' and states that pricing pressure has produced 'a continued decline of average selling prices across our business and we expect that these historical trends will continue.' It also disclaims patent dependence outright. A durable-but-shallow advantage in time-to-market and integration, sitting on top of a commoditizing box business, is narrow rather than wide. |
| Moat type | none The 10-K claims three advantages: power-advantaged sites (it believes securing power and interconnection ahead of demand is 'the principal constraint on new HPC capacity and a core differentiator for us from many of our competitors'), a standardized 'franchise-style' design, and hyperscaler master service and master telecom service agreements 'that are difficult to obtain.' The filing does not show any of them to be durable. Its Competition section says competition 'centers on securing and developing sites with access to large-scale, reliable, and cost-competitive power and interconnection' and names 13 power-advantaged developers going after the same leases, and Item 1A concedes it lacks the resources to compete with larger providers. Signed leases are take-or-pay and non-cancellable, so a tenant leaving for convenience owes 'the full remaining contractual value,' but that is contractual lock-in on each lease rather than a moat source, so no moat type is assigned. | switching costs Stickiness comes from platform embedding, not IP. The 10-K rests differentiation on "our single platform with a unified data model," on "Consolidation of multiple tools into a single platform," and on deployment inside the customer's own perimeter for regulated buyers. Replacement means re-integrating a toolchain and re-certifying compliance. IP is the wrong label: only "16 issued patents and 25 pending patent applications," plus open-source licenses granting "broad permissions to use, copy, modify, and redistribute." The no-lock-in claim is the filing's own characterisation, footnoted to a Forrester study "commissioned by GitLab." | cost scale The filing locates the advantage in design-and-manufacturing scale, not in IP or lock-in. It says the company manufactures the majority of its systems at its San Jose headquarters with assembly, test and QC also in Taiwan, the Netherlands and Malaysia, and that this structure lets it 'reduce time to delivery, mitigate the impact of tariffs and regional costs, and reduce overall manufacturing costs.' Its own list of principal competitive factors includes 'cost-effective design and manufacturing' and 'sufficient manufacturing capacity necessary to support market demand.' Intangibles are explicitly ruled out as the source: 'neither our business as a whole nor any of our principal businesses are materially dependent on a single patent,' with reliance placed 'primarily on trade secrets, technical know-how.' Switching costs are weak by the filing's own account: it 'typically sell[s] products pursuant to purchase orders rather than long-term purchase commitments,' and customers 'have, and others may in the future, cancel or defer purchase orders on short notice without incurring a significant penalty.' |
| Leadership | behind The 10-K makes no leadership claim and gives no ranking or share figure. Item 1A concedes "We do not have the resources to compete with larger providers of similar products or services at this time" and that some rivals have "substantially greater liquidity and financial resources than we do." Its Competition section places APLD against established operators (Digital Realty, Equinix), hyperscalers that build their own capacity, independent developers and 13 named power-advantaged developers (IREN, Cipher Digital, TeraWulf, Hut 8, Riot, CleanSpark, HIVE, Core Scientific, Bitdeer, Galaxy Digital, Fermi, Keel Infrastructure, MARA). | fast follower The 10-K positions GitLab against a leader rather than as one: "Our principal competitor is Microsoft Corporation, which owns GitHub." Competition reads from the challenger side, differentiating "from GitHub through flexible deployment options that work within enterprise security and compliance requirements, LLM neutrality with self-hosted gateway support" and an open core model. On AI it follows: Duo Agent Platform went "Generally available in January 2026," the last month of the fiscal year. What keeps it a follower rather than behind is cadence, "a new version of our software every month for 172 months in a row," plus a regulated-deployment franchise a SaaS-first rival does not cover. | at parity The filing claims no market-share leadership and gives no share figure. It states 'we believe that we compete favorably with respect to most of these factors' while immediately conceding that 'most of our competitors have longer operating histories, significantly greater resources, greater name recognition, or deeper market penetration,' naming Cisco, Dell, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise and Lenovo plus ODMs Foxconn, Quanta Computer and Wiwynn. The one leadership claim it does make is narrow and structural — that it believes it is the only major vendor in its class manufacturing a significant portion of its systems in the United States — plus a stated goal (not an achievement) to 'be the first to market with superior product designs.' Competing favorably against larger, better-penetrated rivals without asserting share leadership is parity, not leadership. |
| Pricing power | weak Item 1A says "Due to the limited number of hyperscalers, we expect that a limited number of customers will continue to account for a high percentage of our revenue for the foreseeable future," and that if customers' equipment usage declines or they discontinue use of its facilities, APLD "may be compelled to lower our lease prices in some instances or risk losing a significant customer." One customer was 59% of FY2026 revenue from continuing operations. Take-or-pay, non-cancellable terms protect contracted revenue over the base term, and Note 19 reports a $39.1M HPC Hosting segment profit on $385.3M of segment revenue in FY2026, but those terms are agreed with a small group of concentrated buyers. | moderate FY2026 gross margin was 87% against 89%, with cost of revenue up $35.6 million "primarily due to an increase of $18.4 million in third party hosting costs for SaaS and cloud usage," and management expects SaaS and Duo mix to bring costs that "may adversely impact our gross margins." Strain is explicit: GitLab "may be required to reduce our prices," competitors "may offer their products and services at a lower price or for free," and it "implemented user limits on our free SaaS product." Power retained: Premium lists at $29 per user/month billed annually, and seats bundle $12 and $24 of GitLab Credits. But "A majority of our subscriptions are on a one-year period." | weak The filing states pricing pressure explicitly and repeatedly. 'Historically, these pricing pressures have led to a continued decline of average selling prices across our business and we expect that these historical trends will continue.' On large orders: 'Large orders are generally subject to intense competition and pricing pressure which can have an adverse impact on our margins and results of operations.' It concedes it has 'accepted customer orders with various types of component pricing protection' which 'increased our exposure to component pricing fluctuations and have adversely affected our financial results in certain quarters,' and that FY2026 industry supply constraints in memory, storage, GPUs and CPUs affected 'the pricing of these items.' Its stated remedy is aspirational rather than realized: it 'must continue to develop more advanced, differentiated products that command a premium.' The filing gives no gross-margin trend in Item 1/1A; margin appears there only as a downside — excess or obsolete inventory 'would reduce our gross margin.' |
| Summary | Applied Digital designs, builds and operates purpose-built, liquid-cooled HPC data centers, which it calls 'AI factories', and leases the capacity to CoreWeave and investment-grade hyperscalers. At May 31, 2026 its 10-K lists five campuses (Polaris Forge 1-3 and Delta Forge 1-2) with about 1,410 MW contracted under roughly 15-year take-or-pay, non-cancellable leases worth about $36.2 billion over the base terms. The filing claims three sources of advantage: it controls power-advantaged sites, it uses a standardized 'franchise-style' design built to deliver about 150 MW in about 14 to 18 months, and it holds hyperscaler master agreements that are 'difficult to obtain.' The same document shows how early the company is. About 100 MW was operating and earning revenue. One customer was 59% of FY2026 revenue from continuing operations. It competes with Digital Realty, Equinix, hyperscalers that build their own capacity and 13 named power-advantaged developers, and it concedes that it lacks the resources to compete with larger providers. Signed leases give long-dated revenue visibility, but the filing does not show a durable competitive advantage. | GitLab sells a single-platform DevSecOps toolchain defended by workflow lock-in rather than intellectual property: a unified data model plus deployment flexibility, including single-tenant "Dedicated for Government with FedRAMP compliance," makes it hard to remove where data residency is contractual. The installed base expands: 118% Dollar-Based Net Retention, 10,682 Base Customers, 1,456 above $100,000 of ARR, 155 above $1.0 million (up 26%), over 70% of ARR from public sector and enterprise. The filing supplies the counterweight: "limited barriers to entry," Microsoft/GitHub as principal competitor, 16 issued patents. Retention (130 to 123 to 118, the 130 a cap), gross margin (89% to 87%) and a January 2026 AI launch point to compression at the commodity end. No source measures market share, so every share band is "unknown". | Supermicro's edge, as its FY2026 10-K frames it, is speed and integration built on a common modular parts bin: it works with NVIDIA, Intel and AMD to 'align the design of our new products with their product release schedules,' then 'quickly assemble a broad portfolio of solutions by leveraging common building blocks across product lines.' During FY2026 it pushed that advantage up a level, growing Data Center Building Block Solutions to 'more than ten key subsystems' — coolant distribution units, heat exchangers, power shelves, switching, management software — and deploying DLC-2 liquid cooling the filing credits with up to 98% per-rack heat capture and up to 40% lower data center power draw. But the filing's competition and risk discussion is candid that this sits inside a price-taking market: ASPs decline structurally, one customer exceeded 10% of net sales in FY2026, and ODMs 'benefit from their scale and very low-cost manufacturing' while increasingly selling their own brands. |
| Chain position | Developer and landlord of power-advantaged, liquid-cooled AI data-center capacity, leased long-term to CoreWeave and investment-grade hyperscalers. | GitLab sits at the software-tooling layer, not compute or models. It consumes third-party LLM capacity — marketing "LLM neutrality and support for self-hosted AI gateways, including air-gapped environments" — so it captures no model-layer economics and bears inference as COGS, visible in the $18.4 million rise in hosting costs. Its distinctive position is the regulated perimeter. | Downstream system integrator: it converts third-party accelerators and CPUs (NVIDIA Blackwell/GB300 NVL72, AMD Instinct MI350, Intel Xeon 6) into validated racks, liquid cooling and full data-center building blocks sold to cloud service providers and enterprises. The AI angle is central, not incidental — the filing devotes a risk factor titled 'The AI industry has driven a significant portion of our recent success' and states 'A portion of the recent success of our server and storage solutions has been dependent on the integration of our products and services within the AI industry.' |
| Products (share / barrier) |
|
|
|
| Long-horizon vote | -0.20 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. | +0.06 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. | -0.01 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. |