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.
| Corning | MaxLinear | NetApp | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moat rating | 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. | none MaxLinear’s FY2025 10-K does not show a durable advantage. Its income statement reports revenue of $693,263 thousand in 2023, $360,528 thousand in 2024 and $467,641 thousand in 2025, with operating losses of $38,221 thousand, $223,352 thousand and $126,890 thousand. The risk factors say “Increased competition has resulted in price pressure, decreased demand, reduced revenue and profitability, and loss of market share”; the business section says competitors include “companies with much longer operating histories, greater name recognition, and substantially greater financial, technical and operational resources”; and because its products “often are building block semiconductors” it also faces integrated-circuit makers, “some of which may be existing customers or platform partners”. Two customers were 28% of 2025 net revenue and the ten largest 65%, and “substantially all of our sales to date have been made on a purchase order basis”. Gross profit held up - $385,663 thousand, $194,782 thousand and $265,814 thousand for 2023 to 2025 - and the AI optical ramp has lifted 2026 results, but a revenue base that nearly halved in one year and three straight years of operating losses do not evidence a moat. | 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 | 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. | none No single source of advantage in the 10-K is strong enough to name. MaxLinear has “over one thousand issued patents” and says consideration under intellectual property sale agreements “has previously been and is currently expected in the future be material”, but the same filing describes its products as building blocks that larger vendors can integrate, says some optical-interconnect customers are “module makers who are vertically integrated, where we compete with internally supplied components”, and claims only that “We believe that we compete favorably” on factors from product performance to price. Its RF-CMOS integration know-how is real, but nothing in the filing shows customers locked in or rivals unable to match it. | 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 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 $972 million of 2025 sales. | fast follower In its fastest-growing line MaxLinear is a second source. Deep Fundamental’s September 27, 2024 deep dive (https://deepfundamental.substack.com/p/deep-dive-optical-module-market) says “Marvell ($MRVL) and Broadcom ($AVGO) are two major suppliers of DSPs, with Marvell holding the top position in the market”, that “Coherent also sources heavily from Marvell, with Broadcom/ Maxlinear potentially serving as second supplier with 20-30% share”, and that MaxLinear offers “DSPs at about half the price of Marvell's if it can achieve a meaningful mass production volume of at least 100K units per month”. Keystone has since reached volume - management said on the Q2 2026 call that it “continues to ramp into high volume production at major hyperscale customers across U.S. and Asia” - but the 10-K names Broadcom, Qualcomm, Realtek, Skyworks, Credo, MediaTek, Marvell, MACOM, Texas Instruments, Analog Devices, Renesas, Microchip and Semtech as primary merchant competitors, and no third-party source found ranks MaxLinear first in any of its markets. | 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 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 Mixed. Gross profit has stayed in proportion through the cycle - the 10-K’s income statement shows $265,814 thousand on revenue of $467,641 thousand in 2025 - and the Q2 2026 release (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001288469/000128846926000050/a06302026exhibit991.htm) reports GAAP gross margin of 57.8% against 56.5% a year earlier, guiding Q3 to 57.0%-60.0%. But the 10-K says “From time to time, we have reduced the average unit price of our products due to competitive pricing pressures, new product introductions by us or our competitors, and for other reasons, and we expect that we will have to do so again in the future”, that under some distributor agreements “we provide protection for reductions in selling prices of the distributors' inventory”, and in optical DSPs it entered as the lower-priced challenger. | 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 | 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. | MaxLinear is a fabless designer of RF, analog and mixed-signal communications SoCs whose core skill, per its FY2025 10-K, is combining broadband RF and analog front ends with digital signal processing in standard CMOS. It sells into broadband access (cable, fiber PON and DSL gateways - approximately 44% of 2025 net revenue), home connectivity (Wi-Fi, MoCA, G.hn and Ethernet), wired and wireless infrastructure including optical data-center DSPs, and industrial and multi-market interface and power products. After a downturn that took revenue from $693,263 thousand in 2023 to $360,528 thousand in 2024, the AI optical ramp is turning it around: the Q2 2026 release reports revenue of $168,847 thousand, up 55% year over year, with the infrastructure business up 145% on the Keystone PAM4 DSP ramp for 800G, and management raised its 2026 optical data-center revenue outlook to $210 million-$230 million on the call. The moat question is whether that growth rests on anything durable. In optical DSPs MaxLinear entered as a lower-priced second source to Marvell; elsewhere it competes with Broadcom, Qualcomm, Realtek and MediaTek, which can integrate the functions it sells; customers are concentrated; and the 10-K still carries the Silicon Motion arbitration over its terminated merger, whose outcome it says it cannot predict. On this record MaxLinear is a technically capable challenger without a moat. | 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 | 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'. | MaxLinear sells chips, much of it through Asian distributors, ODMs and module makers - products shipped to Asia were 82% of 2025 net revenue, including 49% to Hong Kong - that build cable modems, PON terminals, Wi-Fi gateways, base-station radios and optical transceivers for operators and hyperscale data centers. In the AI chain it sits beside the optical-module makers as a DSP supplier, competing with Marvell and Broadcom and, at vertically integrated module makers, with internally supplied components. | 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 | +0.20 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. | +0.01 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. | +0.13 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. |