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.
| Eli Lilly and Company | Celestica | |
|---|---|---|
| Moat rating | wide Eli Lilly's FY2025 10-K states "Intellectual property protection is critical" and that compound patents provide roughly 20-year market exclusivity ("patents in each relevant country last for a period of 20 years"), warning that loss of patent protection causes a "severe and rapid decline in revenues." Backed by an 83.0% gross margin (up from 81.3% in 2024) and a fast-growing, patent-protected incretin franchise (Mounjaro +99%, Zepbound +175% in 2025), the economic moat is wide and durable. Source: LLY FY2025 10-K. | narrow The FY2025 10-K shows a real but bounded edge. On the durable side, Celestica is increasingly engaged as an ODM: its HPS business co-designs (JDM) or fully designs the platforms it builds, it states 'We have hardware and software patents that are integral to our HPS business' and that 'our increased R&D activities have resulted in the growth of our dependence on our patent portfolio', and HPS reached 41% of total revenue in 2025 (from 21% in 2023) at a margin profile the filing says is higher than traditional EMS work. On the limiting side, the same filing concedes 'Some of our competitors have greater scale and provide a broader range of services than we provide', the master supply agreements 'do not typically guarantee a particular level of business or fixed pricing', work is won 'on a program-by-program basis', and the top 10 customers were 79% of 2025 revenue with three customers individually at 32%, 14% and 12%. An advantage that must be re-won each program against greater-scale rivals, for a handful of buyers who can in-source, is narrow rather than wide. |
| Moat type | intangibles ip Per the LLY FY2025 10-K, the pharma protection "anticipated to be of most relevance" is "patents claiming the active ingredient (the compound patent)," supplemented by regulatory data protection, FDA approvals, and brands — i.e., intangible assets. The 10-K notes that without such protection, products face intense generic and biosimilar price competition that erodes revenue quickly. | switching costs Cost scale is explicitly not the source: the 10-K states competitors have greater scale and a broader service range. What does bind a customer is the design-in. Within HPS, Celestica 'design[s] and manufacture[s] products, either as customized solutions, white box solutions or under Joint Design and Manufacturing (JDM) engagements', holds 'hardware and software patents that are integral to our HPS business', and delivers 'complete platform solutions... integration and orchestration of various technologies into rack-scale designs'. The filing adds that 'a majority of these supply agreements also require the customer to purchase unused inventory that we have purchased to fulfill that customer's forecasted manufacturing demand', a contractual cost of walking away mid-program. Moving a qualified, jointly designed rack-scale platform to another ODM means requalifying a design Celestica partly owns, which is friction the commodity assembly work does not carry. |
| Leadership | co leader Duopoly with Novo Nordisk: Novo's own FY2025 20-F names "Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly [as] the most significant companies measured by market share" in the global diabetes and GLP-1 markets. Lilly is ascendant — the 20-F concedes Wegovy's years-long US anti-obesity prescription lead "was overtaken by a competing GLP-1 based product in the beginning of 2025" (Lilly's tirzepatide) — but Novo still cites Ozempic as "the leading product by sales," so co-leader is the honest band. Sources: Novo Nordisk FY2025 20-F; LLY FY2025 10-K. | at parity The 10-K claims no share leadership. It states plainly that 'Some of our competitors have greater scale and provide a broader range of services than we provide', and lists Hon Hai, Flex, Jabil, Sanmina, Benchmark and Plexus in EMS plus Quanta, Wiwynn and Accton in ODM. Its stated competitive advantage is execution quality, not position: 'our track record in advanced manufacturing capabilities, design and engineering, quality, delivery, managing complexity and responsiveness'. It is also winning: CCS revenue grew 42% to $9.19 billion and total revenue reached $12.39 billion in FY2025. Competing on comparable terms with a field it neither leads nor trails is parity. |
| Pricing power | moderate Mixed. The LLY 10-K shows an 83.0% gross margin (up 1.7pp), evidence of strong list-price power on exclusive branded drugs; but it repeatedly notes 2025 revenue growth was "partially offset by lower realized prices" for both Mounjaro and Zepbound, alongside heavy PBM/formulary rebate pressure and default anti-obesity coverage restrictions (e.g., US self-insured employers "must generally opt in" for obesity-drug coverage). Net pricing power is therefore moderate, not strong. | weak The filing describes price as contested by contract, not set by Celestica: master supply agreements 'do not typically guarantee a particular level of business or fixed pricing', 'Some of these agreements require us to provide specific price reductions to our customers over the term of the contracts', and the Item 1A risk factor 'We operate in an industry comprised of numerous competitors and aggressive pricing dynamics' says competitors may be 'willing to, or able to make sales or provide services at lower margins than we do'. The site's fundamentals show gross margin at 12.06% in FY2025, up from 8.96% in FY2022, 9.47% in FY2023 and 10.72% in FY2024 — improving, but still low double digits, and the filing attributes the higher margin to mix (HPS is 'higher margin profile than our traditional EMS businesses' and went from 21% to 41% of revenue over the same span) rather than to raising prices. |
| Summary | Lilly's moat rests on patent-protected, FDA-approved branded medicines led by its tirzepatide incretin franchise: per the FY2025 10-K, Mounjaro ($22.97B) and Zepbound ($13.54B) together generated roughly 56% of 2025's $65.2B revenue (up 99% and 175% respectively), while compound patents confer ~20-year market exclusivity and support an 83.0% gross margin. Durable competition only emerges after patents and regulatory data protection lapse, at which point the 10-K warns generics and biosimilars drive a "severe and rapid decline in revenues." | Celestica is a contract design and manufacturing company that has been pulled up the value chain by the AI data-center build-out. Its CCS segment, which builds networking switches, optical systems, data center racks, servers and storage for hyperscalers and other cloud and AI service providers, grew 42% to $9.19 billion in 2025, and Communications alone went from 33% of revenue in 2023 to 57% in 2025. The part of that business with a defensible position is HPS, where Celestica is the designer rather than the assembler: HPS revenue rose 81% in 2025 to 41% of the total, carries a higher margin than traditional EMS work, and rests on a patent portfolio the filing calls integral to the business. That design-in position is what separates it from pure build-to-print capacity. What caps the moat is the customer side of the ledger. The 10-K describes an industry where 'aggressive pricing is a common business dynamic', where master supply agreements guarantee neither volume nor price and some of them 'require us to provide specific price reductions to our customers over the term of the contracts', and where the company bids program by program against Hon Hai, Flex, Jabil, Sanmina, Benchmark and Plexus on the EMS side and Quanta, Wiwynn and Accton on the ODM side, plus Arista and Cisco where a customer might buy an off-the-shelf switch instead. Revenue concentration has tightened as the AI mix grew, from 64% of revenue in the top 10 customers in 2023 to 79% in 2025, with a single customer at 32%. The company also notes its HPS offerings can compete with a customer's own hardware, which may 'negatively impact our relationship with, or result in a loss of business from, such customers'. So the profile is a genuine but program-scoped advantage, held by a company whose fortunes turn on a few buyers' capital plans. |
| Chain position | Upstream branded-drug originator. Per the FY2025 10-K, US distribution flows through three wholesalers (McKesson, Cencora, Cardinal Health), each accounting for over 10% of consolidated revenue, into consolidated PBMs/payers whose formularies and rebate demands constrain net price; Lilly is also expanding a direct-to-patient channel, LillyDirect. | Celestica sits between component suppliers and the hyperscale buyer, and owns the design only in part of that span. It 'procure[s] substantially all of our materials and components on behalf of our customers pursuant to individual purchase orders that are generally short-term in nature', then designs, assembles, integrates at rack scale and tests the switches, optical systems, servers, storage and data-center racks that cloud, AI and enterprise customers deploy. In ATS it is a pure EMS contractor that does 'not generally collaborate with ATS customers on the design of the solutions we manufacture'; in HPS it is the designer of record or a joint designer. The economics follow that split: the segment where it holds design IP is the one with the higher margin profile. |
| Products (share / barrier) |
|
|
| Long-horizon vote | +0.30 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. | -0.01 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. |