Compare moats

The FY2026 10-K grounds a real but bounded defence. On the defence side: Item 1 states that in the manufacturing services market "there are significant barriers to entry in our existing and target markets, including lengthy sales cycles, the need to demonstrate complex precision optical and electro-mechanical engineering and manufacturing capabilities to a prospective customer and the ability to protect a customer's intellectual property," and that qualification of a program "may take three to six months or longer to complete." On the limiting side, the same filing shows the protection does not reach price: gross profit was 12.0% of revenues in FY2026 against 12.1% in FY2025 and 12.4% in FY2024 even as revenue rose 35.7% to $4.64 billion, four customers each exceeded 10% of revenue (Cisco 19.9%, NVIDIA 16.3%, Nokia 10.7%, Amazon 10.5%), and "reliance on a small number of customers gives those customers substantial purchasing power and leverage in negotiating contracts with us." Sales are made on "individual purchase orders that have short lead times and are subject to revision or cancellation," so the qualified program is sticky while the contract is not.

source: sec.gov

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.

source: sec.gov

The FY2025 10-K asserts a durable competitive position across essentially all of the revenue base: for Electrical Americas and Electrical Global it states 'Eaton has a strong competitive position in these segments and, with respect to many products, is considered among the market leaders'; it repeats that language verbatim for Aerospace ('industry-leading portfolio', 'considered among the market leaders'); and for Vehicle it states 'Eaton is considered among the market leaders in this segment.' That is a claimed leadership position in four of the five reported segments, on a base of $27.4 billion of 2025 revenue, ~97,000 employees and customers in 180 countries, from a company founded in 1911. The rating is tempered rather than lifted higher by the filing's own admissions - price is named among the principal methods of competition in the Electrical, Vehicle and eMobility segments, and the risk factors flag 'newly competitive market players' and that 'our positions may also be impacted by new entrants into our product or regional markets.'

source: sec.gov

The 10-K locates the stickiness in qualification rather than in patents or scale. Customers "do not purchase our services until they qualify the services and satisfactorily complete factory audits and vendor evaluations"; qualification "may take three to six months or longer"; production is transferred "copy-exact: the setup of a production process identical to the one used by our customer"; and the filing's own experience of changing a component source is that it "resulted in our customers or their end customers requiring requalification and validation of components, a process that can often be lengthy and has negatively impacted the timing of our revenue" — the same friction a customer would face moving the program elsewhere. The filing rules out an IP-based moat itself: "Historically, patents have not played a significant role in the protection of our proprietary rights," and any process improvement developed for a customer's product is "immediately assigned to that customer." The Thailand cost base is a genuine advantage but the filing warns it is not durable on its own — "Wage increases may impact our ability to sustain our competitive advantage and may reduce our profit margin."

source: sec.gov

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.

source: sec.gov

The filing's own description of how it competes points at designed-in and qualified positions rather than IP or pure scale. In Aerospace the principal methods of competition are listed as 'total cost of ownership, product and system performance, quality, design engineering capabilities, and timely delivery' - price is conspicuously absent, and 20% of segment sales go to three large aircraft OEMs, i.e. platform-level content that is qualified in and hard to displace mid-programme. In the Electrical segments 'customer service and support' sits alongside performance and technology as a method of competition, and 22% of sales go to six large customers. Intangibles_ip is explicitly ruled out as the primary source by the company itself: 'management believes that the loss or expiration of any single intellectual property right would not in and of itself have a material effect on Eaton's consolidated financial statements or its business segments.' Scale is real but secondary - the filing notes raw materials are bought 'from many suppliers' and 'under normal circumstances, the Company has no difficulty obtaining its raw materials,' which reads as supply resilience rather than a cost advantage claim.

source: sec.gov

The leadership claim in the filing is the company's own qualitative assessment: "We believe we are a leader in manufacturing products for the optical communications market," and, on breadth of process technology, "Based on our experience with customers and our qualitative assessment of our capabilities, we believe we provide a broader array of process technologies to the optics industry than any other manufacturing services provider." The same Item 1 names a crowded field against it — "Benchmark Electronics, Inc., Celestica Inc., InnoLight Technology (Suzhou) Ltd., Jabil Inc., Sanmina Corporation, Venture Corporation Limited and Eoptolink Technology Inc., Ltd., as well as the internal manufacturing capabilities of our customers" — and no independent share ranking is given, so the record supports front-of-field standing but not sole primacy.

source: sec.gov

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".

source: sec.gov

The filing's leadership language is plural and hedged, not exclusive: 'considered among the market leaders' for the Electrical segments (qualified further by 'with respect to many products'), 'among the market leaders' for Aerospace, and 'Eaton is considered among the market leaders' for Vehicle. Nowhere does the 10-K claim to be the single leader in any market, and it never names a competitor or cites a market-share figure. 'Among the market leaders' maps to co_leader, not clear_leader.

source: sec.gov

Gross profit was 12.0% of revenues in FY2026, 12.1% in FY2025 and 12.4% in FY2024 — flat to down across three years in which revenue grew from $2.88 billion to $4.64 billion — and the FY2026 increase in gross profit is attributed to "sales volume and product mix," not price. Item 1 says so directly: "we expect the prices we charge for our manufactured products to decrease over time (partly as a result of competitive market forces)," with the offset coming from cycle-time, mix, yield and material-cost work rather than from rate. The risk factors add that customer consolidation gives buyers "increased leverage that may result in, among other things, decreases in our average selling prices," and that new competition "could result in price reductions for our services, reduced gross profit margins or loss of market share."

source: sec.gov

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.

source: sec.gov

The filing describes pass-through ability that is real but bounded. On input costs: 'While we strive to recoup these increased costs through our pricing, product modifications or other mediating responses, if we are unable to do so without compromising the competitive position of our products and services, our results could continue to be impacted by this trend.' On macro conditions: 'our responses to mitigate the impact of these conditions, such as potential price increases, could negatively impact our market share or relationships with distributors or customers.' On tariffs: 'potential price increases or other mitigating efforts could negatively impact market share or otherwise increase the risk of customer disputes.' Price is also listed as a principal method of competition in Electrical Americas, Electrical Global, Vehicle and eMobility - so raising price is described by the company as costing share. Aerospace is the exception, where price is not among the listed methods of competition. The filing states no gross-margin trend in Item 1 or Item 1A.

source: sec.gov

A contract manufacturer sitting between optical components and the network and AI-datacenter OEMs whose brands ship the finished box. FY2026 revenue is 47.9% data center, 33.3% communications infrastructure and 18.8% automotive, industrial and other markets (FY2025: 46.2% / 30.7% / 23.1%), with Cisco, NVIDIA, Nokia and Amazon each above 10% of revenue. Fabrinet also integrates one layer down, designing and fabricating its own customized optics and glass — crystals, ferrules, precision glass tubing — at Fuzhou, China and Mountain Lakes, New Jersey, both for its own assemblies and for the merchant market, while volume manufacturing runs from the Pinehurst and Chonburi campuses in Thailand.

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".

Upstream electrical infrastructure into AI compute: Eaton supplies the power path from grid to rack, and the 10-K makes that link itself - data center is the first market it names, it cites 'momentum in the data center and utility end markets,' and its 2025-26 acquisitions target hyperscale/colocation modular buildings, solid-state transformers and liquid cooling 'from the chip to the grid.' Its exposure to AI is as a supplier to AI buildout, not as an AI technology vendor; the filing's only AI discussion of its own products is a risk factor about keeping pace with AI internally and about generative-AI compliance risk, which is incidental to the thesis.

• Automotive and medical sensors Niche · Moderate source: sec.gov
• Communications infrastructure optical products Top 3 · Deep source: sec.gov
• Customized optics and glass Challenger · Moderate source: sec.gov
• Data center optical modules and transceivers Top 3 · Deep source: sec.gov
• Industrial laser manufacturing Niche · Moderate source: sec.gov

• AFF and ASA all-flash storage arrays Top 3 · Moderate source: blocksandfiles.com
• Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP Leader · Deep source: docs.aws.amazon.com
• Azure NetApp Files Leader · Deep source: learn.microsoft.com
• NetApp AFX and AI Data Engine Challenger · Moderate source: sec.gov
• NetApp Keystone Challenger · Moderate source: sec.gov
• NetApp StorageGRID Niche · Low source: sec.gov

• Aerospace Top 3 · Deep source: sec.gov
• Electrical Americas Top 3 · Moderate source: sec.gov
• Electrical Global Top 3 · Moderate source: sec.gov
• Vehicle Top 3 · Moderate source: sec.gov
• eMobility Unknown · Low source: sec.gov

Editorial prior, not backtested.

see exactly how it voted →

Editorial prior, not backtested.

see exactly how it voted →

Editorial prior, not backtested.

see exactly how it voted →