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.
| AppLovin | Palo Alto Networks | NetApp | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moat rating | narrow The filing's own words support a narrow moat. Auctions run 'at vast scale and at microsecond-level speeds,' revenue is earned only 'when our advertisers achieve their return on advertising spend targets,' and FY2025 adjusted EBITDA margin was 82.3%. What limits the width: clients 'are not required to enter into long-term agreements' and 'Substantially all of the Company's contracts with customers are cancelable at any time'; the solutions 'primarily operate in the mobile app ecosystem and specifically mobile gaming'; and distribution runs through 'the Apple App Store, the Google Play Store, and Meta' while AppLovin relies 'in part on IDFA.' | narrow Real but bounded. The FY2025 10-K's own Competition section calls the enterprise security industry "intensely competitive" and names four categories of rival — platform incumbents (Cisco, Microsoft, Alphabet), independent security vendors (Check Point, Fortinet, CrowdStrike, Zscaler, Wiz), point-product startups, and the public cloud vendors — while conceding that "some of our competitors may have substantially greater financial, technical, and other resources, greater name recognition, larger sales and marketing budgets, broader distribution, more diversified product lines, and larger and more mature intellectual property portfolios." That record supports a defensible position, not an unassailable one: narrow, not wide. | narrow The FY2026 10-K shows a real, durable lock but not an unassailable one. On the durable side: "Our cloud storage services are based on the same ONTAP data management software that underpins our on-premises ONTAP storage infrastructure offerings", and the same filing's income statement shows the company holding a gross margin near 71% across all three reported years - $4,433M on $6,268M in FY2024, $4,613M on $6,572M in FY2025 and $4,899M on $6,925M in FY2026 - while revenue grew from $6,268M to $6,925M and income from operations widened from 19% to 24% of net revenues. Holding that margin through the memory-cost shock the same filing discloses is the commercial evidence the lock is worth something. On the limiting side, the filing says competition "is intense", that in public cloud "customers may choose native cloud services that are consumed as operating expenses", and that "New competitors or alliances among existing competitors could emerge and quickly gain significant market share" - and IDC's 1Q26 external-storage tracker (Blocks & Files, 2026-06-16, cited on the AFF/ASA product row below) ranks NetApp second behind Dell, not first. |
| Moat type | network effects Network effects, with a caveat. The 10-K states the loop: as more advertisers use the solutions 'we gain access to more data regarding users and user engagement,' 'further strengthening our scaled distribution,' and 'As our distribution grows, we gain better insights for Axon AI.' The mechanism is two-sided matching of advertiser demand to publisher supply, though much of the force comes from data-and-learning scale. It is not switching costs, since contracts are 'cancelable at any time,' nor intangibles or IP, since 'there can be no assurance that we will adequately protect our intellectual property or that it will provide any competitive advantage.' | switching costs The 10-K describes an installed estate standardised on one operating system — "All of our hardware and software firewalls incorporate the PAN-OS operating system and include the same rich set of features, ensuring consistent operation across our entire product line" — across hardware, containerised CN-Series and virtual VM-Series form factors, centrally administered through Panorama and Strata Cloud Manager. That estate is monetised as recurring contract: subscription and support was 80.5% of total revenue in fiscal 2025 (80.0% in fiscal 2024, 77.1% in fiscal 2023), on terms "typically one to five years." The company's own risk factors describe the friction from the other side — customers "may face real or perceived switching costs when switching to our solutions from legacy security vendors" and "have often invested substantial personnel and financial resources to design and operate their networks... [and] may prefer to purchase from their existing suppliers rather than add or switch to a new supplier." As the incumbent in most of those estates, that friction now runs in Palo Alto's favour. | switching costs The FY2026 10-K makes the source of the advantage explicit and it is the cost of leaving the data-management layer, not a network or a patent estate. The same ONTAP software runs the on-premises arrays and the cloud services ("Our cloud storage services are based on the same ONTAP data management software that underpins our on-premises ONTAP storage infrastructure offerings"), and the AFF family "allows customers to connect to clouds for more data services, data tiering, caching, and disaster recovery". A customer's volume layout, snapshot and replication workflow and operating tools therefore carry from the array into Azure, AWS and Google rather than being abandoned at the cloud boundary — the filing describes NetApp as "the only provider of enterprise-grade storage services natively embedded in the world's largest public cloud providers", so the usual moment of escape is instead the moment the relationship renews. |
| Leadership | at parity The filing discloses no share of any market, names 'Meta, Google, Amazon, and Unity Software' as competitors, and concedes rivals 'may have greater resources' and 'better technological or data analytics capabilities, or stronger brands or competitive positions in certain product segments.' Its one positional statement is parity language: 'We believe we compete favorably with respect to these factors.' Two unquantified points cut upward: Meta and Google are also clients, and MAX is called 'the preferred in-app bidding solution for many publishers worldwide.' | co leader The 10-K claims parity-plus, not primacy: "We believe we generally compete favorably with our competitors on the basis of these factors as a result of the features and performance of our portfolio, the ease of integration of our security solutions with technological infrastructures, and the relatively low total cost of ownership of our products," and reports that its "products and services have been recognized as leading in 25 categories by third-party industry analysts firms." It qualifies that immediately by conceding that some competitors carry greater resources, name recognition and distribution. Independent analyst placements match a co-leader read rather than a sole-leader one — a Leader in the inaugural 2025 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Hybrid Mesh Firewalls, a Leader for the third consecutive time in the 2025 Magic Quadrant for SASE Platforms, and a Leader in the 2026 Magic Quadrant for Endpoint Protection Platforms for the fourth consecutive year — in categories that name other Leaders too. | co leader IDC's 1Q26 external enterprise storage systems tracker, as reported by Blocks & Files on 2026-06-16 (cited in full on the AFF/ASA product row below), ranks NetApp second worldwide behind Dell and ahead of Everpure, Huawei and HPE, attributing the placing to "its growing all-flash business and cloud-integrated data management". Second of five ranked vendors, in a market whose leader is someone else, is a shared front rank rather than an owned one - and the distinct claim NetApp makes in the FY2026 10-K is positional rather than volumetric: being "the only provider of enterprise-grade storage services natively embedded in the world's largest public cloud providers". |
| Pricing power | strong Strong, with the mechanism shown. The 10-K states that 'Advertisers are charged dynamically based on their campaign goals , rather than a simple fixed price per impression or per action.' Growth composition is the evidence: FY2025 revenue +70% with 'the volume of installations increased 3% and net revenue per installation increased 72%'; H1 2026 +56% with per-installation revenue +75% against 'a decrease in the volume of installations of 10%.' Adjusted EBITDA margin was 82.3% in FY2025 and 84.2% in H1 2026, though payment is performance-contingent and contracts cancel at will. | moderate Moderate, with the evidence pointing both ways in the same filing. Gross margin computed from the three years of income statements inside this FY2025 10-K runs 72.3% (fiscal 2023), 74.3% (fiscal 2024) and 73.4% in fiscal 2025 on revenue of $9.22 billion — against 68.8% in fiscal 2022 as reported in the prior-year 10-K (accession 0001327567-24-000029, filed September 6, 2024). Over the same span subscription and support rose from 77.1% to 80.5% of revenue: a mix shift toward software that has been margin-accretive, not margin-destructive, which is the direct answer to whether platformisation is simply discounting. Against that, the 10-K's risk factors state plainly that sales prices "may decline for a variety of reasons, including competitive pricing pressures, discounts, a change in our mix... or promotional programs," that the company "anticipate[s] that the sales prices and gross profits for our products could decrease over product life cycles," and that it "has also experienced demands for customer financing and deferred payments." Pricing is defended by bundle economics rather than commanded outright. | moderate It holds price rather than raising it. On the figures filed with the FY2026 10-K, gross margin was 70.7% of revenue in FY2024 ($4,433M on $6,268M), 70.2% in FY2025 ($4,613M on $6,572M) and 70.7% in FY2026 ($4,899M on $6,925M) - flat across three years in which revenue grew from $6,268M to $6,925M - and it held that level while absorbing a component-cost shock. It is no stronger than that because the filing's own risk factor lists "competitive pricing, customer price sensitivity" and "pricing and discounting pressures" among the drivers of gross margin, and discloses that the company "experienced inflationary pressure and supply chain constraints beginning in the second half of fiscal 2026, resulting in increased costs for memory and other components, which have affected our gross margins" - a cost shock it is absorbing rather than fully passing on. |
| Summary | One reportable segment: an AI-priced auction matching advertiser demand to publisher supply, where 'Revenue from Axon Ads Manager comprises substantially all of our revenue.' The filed flywheel is real - more advertiser spend yields more user-engagement data, 'further strengthening our scaled distribution,' which feeds Axon AI - and it converts: FY2025 revenue $5.48B, up 70%, at an 82.3% adjusted EBITDA margin, carried by price (net revenue per installation +72%) not volume (installations +3%). What the filing does not evidence is a lock. Contracts are cancelable at any time, revenue concentrates in mobile gaming, and the distribution and identifier layers belong to Apple, Google and Meta - two of whom are simultaneously named competitors and disclosed clients. Wide margins with no disclosed structural lock is narrow. | A deployed firewall estate is the anchor. Every Palo Alto firewall — appliance, VM-Series, CN-Series, Cloud NGFW — runs the same PAN-OS with the same feature set and is managed from one console, so the security policy, the operator skills and the integration work are all specific to the vendor, and 80.5% of fiscal 2025 revenue is the recurring subscription and support contract sitting on top of it (10-K, Business and Risk Factors). Platformisation is the attempt to convert that anchor into wallet share: the 10-K states the strategy as helping customers "simplify their security architectures through consolidating disparate point products" by packaging offerings "into a tightly integrated architecture," and the acquisitions are consistent with it — IBM's QRadar assets in August 2024 "to help accelerate the growth of our Cortex business," Protect AI in July 2025, and the CyberArk agreement signed in July 2025. The evidence that consolidation is real rather than a discount: remaining performance obligation grew 36% year over year to $18.4 billion against 31% revenue growth in the quarter ended April 30, 2026 (Palo Alto Networks FQ3 2026 results release, June 2, 2026) — contracted future obligation compounding faster than recognised revenue, which is the opposite of what buying revenue with price would produce. The counterweight is disclosed in the same filings: the 10-K warns sales prices "may decline for a variety of reasons, including competitive pricing pressures, discounts," anticipates that "sales prices and gross profits for our products could decrease over product life cycles," and reports "demands for customer financing and deferred payments." Against CrowdStrike in security operations and Zscaler in SASE, Palo Alto is competing across the whole surface rather than defending a monopoly on any one of them — hence a narrow moat, not a wide one. | NetApp sells storage hardware but the asset is ONTAP, the data-management software that has run its arrays for over three decades and now also runs inside the three largest public clouds as a first-party service. The FY2026 10-K organises the company into two segments, Hybrid Cloud (AFF and ASA all-flash arrays, AFX for AI workloads, FAS hybrid-flash, E/EF-Series, StorageGRID object storage) and Public Cloud (Azure NetApp Files, Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP, Google Cloud NetApp Volumes, Cloud Volumes ONTAP), and states that both rest on the same ONTAP software. That is the whole argument: an enterprise that has standardised its snapshots, replication and multiprotocol access on ONTAP carries those habits with it when it moves workloads to a hyperscaler, and NetApp is paid on both sides of the move. The evidence that the lock has commercial value is the margin's steadiness: across the three years the FY2026 10-K reports, gross margin sat at 70.7%, 70.2% and 70.7% of revenue ($4,433M on $6,268M, $4,613M on $6,572M, $4,899M on $6,925M) while revenue grew, and the filing's own percentage-of-revenue table shows no mix shift doing that work - product and services held near 46% and 54% of revenue throughout. The limits are equally in the filing. NetApp is second, not first: IDC's 1Q26 tracker puts it behind Dell in external enterprise storage, and the 10-K's competition section concedes that cloud providers are simultaneously partners and rivals, that consumption models "may reduce overall demand for our traditional on-premises offerings sold through a capital expenditure (capex) model", and that alternative architectures "may reduce or eliminate demand for some of our offerings". Component exposure is real too: the filing discloses "inflationary pressure and supply chain constraints beginning in the second half of fiscal 2026, resulting in increased costs for memory and other components, which have affected our gross margins", and names NAND among the components whose supply can tighten. This is a durable second place built on software stickiness, not a structural monopoly. |
| Chain position | Demand-side AI ad platform: it monetizes third-party mobile-game publishers' inventory and sells outcomes to advertisers, so it sits downstream of Apple/Google app distribution and Apple's IDFA identifier layer and upstream of publisher monetization. Meta and Google are simultaneously named competitors and disclosed clients. Single reportable segment after the June 2025 Apps divestiture. | A security-software consumer of the AI stack rather than a supplier to it — it buys compute to run Precision AI and now sells protection for the stack itself through Prisma AIRS (AI model scanning, posture management, red teaming, runtime and AI-agent security). Distribution is two-tier and concentrated: 44.2% of fiscal 2025 revenue came through three distributors and more than 8,500 channel partners, while no single end-customer exceeded 10% of revenue in fiscal 2025, 2024 or 2023. | NetApp sits between the memory supply and the enterprise data centre. Upstream, the FY2026 10-K says "Third-party component costs make up a significant portion of our product costs" and singles out NAND as hard to manage "if supplies of certain components, including NAND, become limited relative to demand". Downstream, the hyperscalers are channel, partner and rival at once: the filing states "We both partner with and compete against cloud service providers through our cloud-based software and services offerings", while Azure NetApp Files, Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP and Google Cloud NetApp Volumes are delivered as those clouds' own natively embedded services. Distribution is a mix of direct sales and "an ecosystem of partners, including the leading cloud providers". |
| Products (share / barrier) |
|
|
|
| Long-horizon vote | +0.11 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. | +0.13 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. | +0.13 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. |