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.
| Cloudflare | Corning | NetApp | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moat rating | wide The band is earned by a measured share gap on a hard-to-rebuild asset, not asserted. W3Techs' 17 September 2026 survey (w3techs.com/technologies/overview/proxy) puts Cloudflare in front of 25.8% of all websites, an 85.0% share of the reverse-proxy market, against Amazon CloudFront at 5.5%, Fastly at 3.0% and Akamai at 2.1% - roughly fifteen times the nearest rival. The FY2025 10-K filed 2026-02-26 describes what a challenger would have to reproduce to contest that: a network that 'spans more than 330 cities in over 125 countries worldwide and interconnects with over 13,000 networks globally', architected to 'run every service on every server in every city' - capacity and peering accumulated city by city over a decade, not bought in a quarter. The position has been monetised without margin decay: SEC XBRL fundamentals on this site show GAAP gross margin inside a 74.5-78.7% band in every fiscal year from FY2017 to FY2025 while revenue grew from $134.9M to $2,167.9M, and Cloudflare's Q4/FY2025 results release of 2026-02-10 (cloudflare.com/press/press-releases/2026/cloudflare-announces-fourth-quarter-and-fiscal-year-2025-financial-results/) reports remaining performance obligations up 48% and new annual contract value up nearly 50% year over year. What stops this being a certainty rather than a judgement: the dominant share sits in application services, while SASE and developer compute are contested by vendors the 10-K itself concedes hold 'substantially greater financial, technical, and other resources.' | narrow Corning's FY2025 Form 10-K (filed 12 February 2026) documents real protection in two places and hedges everywhere else. In Display it states flatly that 'We are the largest worldwide producer of glass substrates for flat panel displays' and credits a 'proprietary fusion manufacturing process, which we invented and is the cornerstone of our technology leadership in the display glass industry'; in Optical Communications it says 'We maintain a leadership position in the segment's principal product groups, which include carrier and enterprise networks'. But the Competition section opens on a company-wide concession - 'Some of these competitors are larger than we are, and some have broader product lines' - and closes that opening paragraph with 'There is no assurance that we will be able to maintain or improve our market position or competitive advantage', a hedge set over the five per-segment paragraphs that follow, the last of which has Life Sciences facing 'competition from large distributors that have pursued backward integration or introduced private label products'. In optical it expects 'industry consolidation, pricing pressure and competition for the innovation of new products' to persist. The risk factors add that Optical Communications and Display 'generate a significant amount of the Company's profits and cash flow' and are 'subject to pricing pressure', while the customer base is concentrated enough that customers 'may possess substantial leverage in negotiating contractual obligations' - the filing's own table puts two combined end customers at 28% of 2025 Optical Communications segment net sales, three at 59% of Display, two at 43% of Specialty Materials and three at 61% of Automotive. Protection that is genuine but confined to part of the portfolio, held against named larger rivals and customers with that much leverage, is narrow rather than 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 | cost scale The FY2025 10-K states the mechanism outright, and it is a unit-cost curve rather than a user-to-user network: 'We have chosen to utilize this idle capacity to create a free tier of service which has generated substantial global scale for us. In turn, this scale makes us attractive partners for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) globally, which reduces our co-location and bandwidth costs. As our network grows, these dynamics become even more powerful.' The same section explains why the curve applies to every line rather than one: the architecture lets Cloudflare 'deploy standard, commodity hardware' and run 'every service on every server in every city', so a new product reaches 330+ cities at near-zero incremental capital. That is what lets the filing claim Workers is offered 'at prices that are highly competitive with public cloud vendors' while FY2025 GAAP gross margin still printed 74.5%. Switching costs (traffic routed through Cloudflare, DNS delegated to it) and threat-intelligence feedback from aggregate traffic sit on top, but the filing-stated primary source is cost falling as the network grows. | intangibles ip What the filing keeps pointing at is invented process technology and the patent estate fencing it, not a network and not raw size. The FY2025 10-K repeats 'Patent protection is important to the segment's operations' word for word in four of its five reportable segments - Optical Communications, Specialty Materials, Automotive and Life Sciences - and gives Display a stronger variant, 'Patent protection and proprietary trade secrets are important to the Display segment's operations'. It reports about 11,375 unexpired patents owned worldwide at the end of 2025 (about 4,015 of them U.S.), about 370 U.S. and over 970 non-U.S. grants during 2025 and about 5,650 applications in process, and states 'We have historically enforced, and will continue to enforce, our intellectual property rights.' The single clearest asset is a process rather than a product - the fusion draw Corning says it invented and calls the cornerstone of its display-glass technology leadership, guarded in Display by 'proprietary trade secrets'. Even the cost advantage the filing claims in optical is sourced back to the same place: 'Our large-scale manufacturing experience, fiber process, technology leadership and intellectual property provide cost advantages relative to several of our competitors' - scale is described there as a consequence of the process, not the origin of the advantage, which is why this is an IP-and-know-how moat rather than a cost-scale one. The estate is broad rather than cliff-edged: 'no one patent is considered material to any segment', and about 740 worldwide patents, 6.5% of the portfolio, expire between 2026 and 2028. | 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 | clear leader Leadership is measured, not inferred. W3Techs on 2026-09-17 records an 85.0% reverse-proxy market share against 5.5% for Amazon CloudFront and 2.1% for Akamai, and makes Cloudflare the largest authoritative-DNS provider at 18.5% of all websites versus 9.9% for the next-placed GoDaddy Group. The FY2025 10-K reports the enterprise side moving the same way - 4,298 large customers at 2025 year-end against 3,497 a year earlier and 2,756 in 2023 - and the Q4/FY2025 results release (cloudflare.com/press/press-releases/2026/cloudflare-announces-fourth-quarter-and-fiscal-year-2025-financial-results/) cites the largest annual contract value deal in company history at about $42.5M per year. The band is for the application-services core the share data covers; in SASE and in serverless compute Cloudflare is a challenger to larger incumbents, and no independent placement naming Cloudflare in those markets was obtained for this profile. | clear leader The FY2025 10-K makes exactly one unqualified rank claim and it is Display: 'We are the largest worldwide producer of glass substrates for flat panel displays', with only AGC Inc. and Nippon Electric Glass Co., Ltd. named as principal competitors. The second-strongest claim is Optical Communications' - 'We maintain a leadership position in the segment's principal product groups, which include carrier and enterprise networks' - asserted against Amphenol, Fujikura and its subsidiary America Fujikura Ltd., Sumitomo and Prysmian Group S.p.A. Those two lines carry the company: Optical Communications was 38% of total segment net sales in 2025 and Display 23%, and the segment table credits them with $1,048 million and $993 million respectively of the $2,747 million of reportable-segment net income. The band is a company-level judgment weighted to them, and it does not extend across the portfolio - Automotive claims only 'a strong market position', and Life Sciences describes itself as 'a leading developer, manufacturer and global supplier of laboratory products for over 110 years' while competing against the much larger Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. and Danaher Corporation on $972 million of 2025 sales. | 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 | moderate Evidence cuts both ways, which is why this is not the top band. For it: GAAP gross margin has never left a 74.5-78.7% band across FY2017-FY2025 (SEC XBRL fundamentals on this site) even as revenue compounded 16x, and the Q4/FY2025 results release (cloudflare.com/press/press-releases/2026/cloudflare-announces-fourth-quarter-and-fiscal-year-2025-financial-results/) shows customers committing more rather than less - RPO +48% year over year and new ACV up nearly 50%. Against it: FY2025's 74.5% is the lowest reading in that nine-year series, a large permanent free tier anchors the entry price, the 10-K positions Workers 'at prices that are highly competitive with public cloud vendors', and the competition risk factor warns that larger rivals can 'sell products and services with which we compete at zero or negative margins, offer fee waivers and reductions or other economic and non-economic concessions', with competitive pressure that 'may result in price reductions, fewer subscriptions, reduced revenue and gross margin'. | moderate The FY2025 10-K shows prices being raised and sticking, and in the same breath shows what caps them. The results table puts gross margin at 36% of net sales in 2025 against 33% in 2024, and MD&A attributes the three-point gain to 'higher volume and the impact of actions taken by management to improve profitability, including raising prices, reducing costs and increasing productivity.' Display is the cleanest case: after resetting its core rate from 107 to 120 Japanese yen to the dollar, 'we implemented pricing actions in the second half of 2024', and 'The effects of the price increases on slightly higher volumes in 2025, compared to the prior period, substantially offset the impact of resetting the core rate.' The ceiling is disclosed in the same document: Optical Communications and Display are 'subject to pricing pressure', concentrated customers 'may possess substantial leverage in negotiating contractual obligations', and a risk factor warns that 'Increasing our prices to our customers may cause certain of our customers to push out, cancel or refrain from purchasing our products'. Price that holds on the back of rising volume, against customers that concentrated, is moderate rather than strong. | 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 | Cloudflare sells security, performance and connectivity as services delivered from one global anycast network rather than from boxes at a customer's edge. The FY2025 10-K frames the market as a consolidation away from enterprises that 'string together a diverse set of on-premises hardware boxes from different vendors' and away from 'stringing together multiple point-cloud solutions that only address specific network needs', toward one integrated provider it calls the Connectivity Cloud, and places Cloudflare as 'a leader in this Connectivity Cloud category'. The economics are unusual: idle capacity funds a free tier, the free tier buys global traffic scale, that scale makes Cloudflare a peering partner ISPs want, and peering cuts colocation and bandwidth cost - a loop the filing says 'become[s] even more powerful' as the network grows. Independent measurement confirms where that loop has already settled the market: W3Techs on 2026-09-17 shows an 85.0% reverse-proxy share and the largest authoritative-DNS footprint at 18.5% of all websites. Commercially the company ended 2025 with roughly 332,000 paying customers in more than 190 countries and 4,298 large customers, up from 2,756 two years earlier, with no customer above 10% of revenue. The contested half of the story is the growth half: the SASE platform competes with established cloud-security, email-security and SD-WAN vendors, and the developer platform competes for storage and compute against hyperscalers, markets where the 10-K's own risk factors concede rivals have greater name recognition, larger customer bases and 'more mature products and services developed for large customers'. The core is defended; the adjacencies are being fought for, and FY2025 gross margin at a nine-year low of 74.5% is the first visible cost of building GPU capacity for that fight. | Corning is a materials company whose defence is a set of manufacturing processes it invented and then papered over with patents, and the FY2025 10-K is unusually explicit about where that defence holds and where it does not. It holds in Display, the one place the filing makes an outright rank claim - 'We are the largest worldwide producer of glass substrates for flat panel displays' - against only two named principal competitors, AGC Inc. and Nippon Electric Glass. The stated reason is process: a fusion process Corning invented, which it says 'is scalable and we believe it is the most cost-effective process for producing large size substrates', protected by patents and 'proprietary trade secrets'. It holds more loosely in Optical Communications, where the company claims 'a leadership position' and grounds it in 'large-scale manufacturing experience, fiber process, technology leadership and intellectual property', with 4,121 worldwide patents in that segment alone - but names Amphenol, Fujikura and America Fujikura, Sumitomo and Prysmian Group as principal competitors and says the landscape's 'industry consolidation, pricing pressure and competition for the innovation of new products' are 'likely to persist'. Those two lines carry the company: the filing puts Optical Communications at 38% of total segment net sales in 2025 and Display at 23%, and the segment table gives them $1,048 million and $993 million respectively of the $2,747 million of reportable-segment net income. Outside them the language weakens fast: Automotive claims 'a strong market position' against a single undivided list - 'Our principal competitors include NGK Insulators, Ltd., Ibiden Co., Ltd., AGC Inc. and LENS.'; Specialty Materials rests on capabilities and 'Brand recognition and loyalty, through well-known trademarks' against Schott, AGC, Nippon Electric Glass, Heraeus and JENOPTIK; and Life Sciences, at 6% of segment net sales and $61 million of segment net income on $972 million of sales, competes with Thermo Fisher Scientific, Danaher, Avantor and others while also facing 'competition from large distributors that have pursued backward integration or introduced private label products'. The demand side is currently the strongest part of the story rather than the moat: 2025 optical segment net sales rose 35% to $6,274 million, which the 10-K attributes to 'continued growth in our Enterprise business driven by strong demand for our Generative AI products, and in our Carrier business, driven by demand for datacenter interconnect products and fiber-to-the-home products'. That is a customer capex wave - the risk factors name 'fluctuations in telecommunication and hyperscale data center capital spending' as a risk to the very same business - landing on segments the company itself says are subject to pricing pressure, which is the honest reason this profile stops at narrow: Corning has a defended process franchise in glass and a strong but contested one in fiber, wrapped in segments where the filing claims no structural barrier at all. | 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 | Cloudflare sits between end users and whatever hosts the application - origin data centre, public cloud or SaaS - so it is a control layer in front of infrastructure rather than infrastructure a workload runs on, which the 10-K argues is the point: customers 'concerned about being locked in to any one public cloud provider' want policy enforced by 'an independent and integrated services provider'. Two AI-era roles follow from that position. As a supplier, the filing describes 'ongoing deployment of graphics processing units (GPUs) across our global network of servers' behind Workers AI, Vectorize and AI Gateway, putting inference next to the user instead of in a region. As a gatekeeper, the application-services suite now exists in part to 'easily identify, block and control access from AI crawlers and AI agents and operators' and underpins announced efforts to let content creators monetise how those crawlers reach their work - which makes Cloudflare a toll point between AI model builders and the open web. | Corning sits a layer beneath the AI build-out, supplying the glass and fiber rather than the compute. The FY2025 10-K describes 'optical fiber, cable and connectivity solutions for advanced communications networks, such as fiber to the home and data centers, enabling artificial intelligence', and says 'the rapid acceleration of artificial intelligence ("AI") is driving strong demand for fiber and connectivity products inside and between data centers', citing purpose-built parts such as the SMF-28e Contour fiber, 'a 40% smaller fiber', and the Contour Flow Cable 'which can fit double the fiber into the same cable diameter'. It also sells into chipmaking, through HPFS Fused Silica, ULE Ultra-Low Expansion Glass and the EXTREME ULE Glass introduced in 2024 to 'support chip manufacturers in meeting the rapidly growing demand for advanced and intelligent technologies'. The exposure is already in the numbers: Optical Communications net sales rose 35% to $6,274 million in 2025, which the filing attributes first to 'continued growth in our Enterprise business driven by strong demand for our Generative AI products'. | 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 | +0.38 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. | +0.20 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. | +0.13 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. |