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.
| IBM | Applied Digital | Dell Technologies | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moat rating | narrow IBM's FY2025 10-K describes "a highly competitive environment" with "hundreds of competitors" and says IBM is "regularly exposed to new competitors" as it executes its hybrid-cloud/AI strategy, while differentiating through "incumbency with enterprises" and "client relationships and trust" — a real but narrow moat, not a wide one. | none The FY2026 10-K (filed 2026-07-29) shows contracted revenue, not a demonstrated competitive edge. About 1,410 MW is leased under 15-year take-or-pay, non-cancellable base terms worth about $36.2 billion, but only about 100 MW of the roughly 1.5 GW that is contracted and either operating or under construction was operating and earning revenue at May 31, 2026, and Item 1A says "lessees may have the right to terminate applicable leases if there are significant delays in construction." Item 1A also concedes "We do not have the resources to compete with larger providers of similar products or services at this time," and the Competition section names 13 power-advantaged developers the company competes with. Signed leases give revenue visibility, but the filing does not show a durable advantage. | narrow The FY2026 10-K describes advantages that are real but shallow, and a revenue mix that is diluting them. It names them as 'our end-to-end solutions portfolio, go-to-market capabilities, supply chain, and global services' and calls the direct sales channel 'a significant competitive advantage', while conceding it faces 'ongoing product and price competition in all areas of our business from both branded and generic competitors' and, on components, that 'any disruption that may occur because of our dependence on single- or limited-source vendors would not disproportionately disadvantage us relative to our competitors' - i.e. no differentiated supply position. The filing's own margin table shows where the franchise actually earns: total gross margin fell from 23.8% of net revenue in Fiscal 2024 to 22.2% in Fiscal 2025 to 20.0% in Fiscal 2026, and inside that, product gross margin fell 17.5% to 15.8% to 13.7% while services gross margin rose 40.8% to 41.4% to 44.8%. Narrow rather than none, because the high-margin services and storage core is intact and its margin rate improved; narrow rather than wide, because the line that is growing carries a 13.7% product gross margin and the filing attributes the whole decline to it. |
| Moat type | switching costs The 10-K roots IBM's differentiation in "incumbency with enterprises" and "client relationships and trust" — installed-base lock-in across its hybrid-cloud platform (Red Hat) and enterprise software and infrastructure raises switching costs. | none The 10-K claims three advantages: power-advantaged sites (it believes securing power and interconnection ahead of demand is 'the principal constraint on new HPC capacity and a core differentiator for us from many of our competitors'), a standardized 'franchise-style' design, and hyperscaler master service and master telecom service agreements 'that are difficult to obtain.' The filing does not show any of them to be durable. Its Competition section says competition 'centers on securing and developing sites with access to large-scale, reliable, and cost-competitive power and interconnection' and names 13 power-advantaged developers going after the same leases, and Item 1A concedes it lacks the resources to compete with larger providers. Signed leases are take-or-pay and non-cancellable, so a tenant leaving for convenience owes 'the full remaining contractual value,' but that is contractual lock-in on each lease rather than a moat source, so no moat type is assigned. | cost scale The filing locates the advantage in scale of distribution and supply, not in proprietary rights. It states 'Our world-class supply chain operates at significant scale', describes a direct sales force plus a partner network that produced 'approximately 40% of our net revenue' in Fiscal 2026, and lists supply chain and global services among its competitive advantages. The IP alternative is ruled out in the same document: with 25,859 granted patents held at January 30, 2026, Dell still says 'we are not substantially dependent on any single patent or group of related patents.' |
| Leadership | fast follower An enterprise incumbent that differentiates via "incumbency with enterprises" but is "regularly exposed to new competitors" in its hybrid-cloud/AI push (FY2025 10-K) — a follower in the current AI cycle rather than its leader. | behind The 10-K makes no leadership claim and gives no ranking or share figure. Item 1A concedes "We do not have the resources to compete with larger providers of similar products or services at this time" and that some rivals have "substantially greater liquidity and financial resources than we do." Its Competition section places APLD against established operators (Digital Realty, Equinix), hyperscalers that build their own capacity, independent developers and 13 named power-advantaged developers (IREN, Cipher Digital, TeraWulf, Hut 8, Riot, CleanSpark, HIVE, Core Scientific, Bitdeer, Galaxy Digital, Fermi, Keel Infrastructure, MARA). | co leader The 10-K's only positioning claim is the unquantified 'Dell Technologies is a leader in the global technology industry'; it names no competitor and gives no share anywhere. The band therefore rests on disclosed absolute scale - ISG net revenue of 60,826m and CSG net revenue of 50,984m in Fiscal 2026, operations in over 170 countries - set against the filing's own admission that hyperscale Infrastructure-as-a-Service buyers 'often buy their infrastructure directly from original design manufacturers', which caps how much of the market Dell can lead at all. |
| Pricing power | moderate Gross margin is high and rising (54.9% FY2021 to 58.2% FY2025) on a software-mix shift, but "price" is a principal method of competition per the 10-K and consulting/infrastructure remain price-competitive. | weak Item 1A says "Due to the limited number of hyperscalers, we expect that a limited number of customers will continue to account for a high percentage of our revenue for the foreseeable future," and that if customers' equipment usage declines or they discontinue use of its facilities, APLD "may be compelled to lower our lease prices in some instances or risk losing a significant customer." One customer was 59% of FY2026 revenue from continuing operations. Take-or-pay, non-cancellable terms protect contracted revenue over the base term, and Note 19 reports a $39.1M HPC Hosting segment profit on $385.3M of segment revenue in FY2026, but those terms are agreed with a small group of concentrated buyers. | weak The filing describes price-taking and its own tables confirm it. It reports 'ongoing product and price competition in all areas of our business from both branded and generic competitors' and says 'We closely monitor market pricing, including the effect of foreign exchange rate movements, in an effort to provide the best value for our customers.' Total gross margin fell from 23.8% of net revenue in Fiscal 2024 to 22.2% in Fiscal 2025 to 20.0% in Fiscal 2026, with product gross margin down to 13.7%; CSG operating margin fell three straight years (7.6%, 6.1%, 5.6% of segment revenue); and non-GAAP operating income as a percentage of net revenue 'decreased 10 basis points to 8.8%' even as revenue grew 19%. Consolidated operating margin did rise 70 basis points to 7.2%, but the filing credits a lower operating expense rate for that, not price. |
| Summary | IBM's moat rests on deep enterprise incumbency — sticky installed-base relationships across hybrid cloud (Red Hat), enterprise software, and mission-critical infrastructure, plus brand and a large patent base. But its own FY2025 10-K frames "a highly competitive environment" with "hundreds of competitors" and says IBM is "regularly exposed to new competitors" as it pursues hybrid cloud and AI, so the moat is durable but narrow and contested in the AI/cloud growth arena. | Applied Digital designs, builds and operates purpose-built, liquid-cooled HPC data centers, which it calls 'AI factories', and leases the capacity to CoreWeave and investment-grade hyperscalers. At May 31, 2026 its 10-K lists five campuses (Polaris Forge 1-3 and Delta Forge 1-2) with about 1,410 MW contracted under roughly 15-year take-or-pay, non-cancellable leases worth about $36.2 billion over the base terms. The filing claims three sources of advantage: it controls power-advantaged sites, it uses a standardized 'franchise-style' design built to deliver about 150 MW in about 14 to 18 months, and it holds hyperscaler master agreements that are 'difficult to obtain.' The same document shows how early the company is. About 100 MW was operating and earning revenue. One customer was 59% of FY2026 revenue from continuing operations. It competes with Digital Realty, Equinix, hyperscalers that build their own capacity and 13 named power-advantaged developers, and it concedes that it lacks the resources to compete with larger providers. Signed leases give long-dated revenue visibility, but the filing does not show a durable competitive advantage. | The AI-server line is enormous and it is not a moat - the FY2026 10-K says so in its own margin bridge. AI-optimized servers net revenue went 1,873m in Fiscal 2024 to 9,286m in Fiscal 2025 to 24,683m in Fiscal 2026 (+396% then +166%), lifting total ISG revenue to 60,826m (+40%). Over the same year ISG operating income as a percentage of segment revenue fell 110 basis points to 11.7% 'due to a decline in gross margin rate that outpaced the decline in operating expense rate. Gross margin rate decreased primarily as the result of a shift in mix towards our AI-optimized servers offerings', and the Fiscal 2027 outlook repeats the expectation of 'margin rate pressure resulting from a continuing shift in mix towards our AI-optimized servers offerings'. The cleanest test of pass-through is the filing's product-versus-services split: product net revenue grew 27% to 90,405m at a 13.7% gross margin (down from 15.8% and 17.5%), while services net revenue fell 4% to 23,133m at a 44.8% gross margin. The AI boom arrived entirely as thin product revenue and did not pull the profitable services book along with it. What Dell adds is described plainly as integration: it uses contract manufacturers, buys components from suppliers and 'subsequently sell[s] those components to the manufacturer', and its own 'manufacturing process consists of assembly, software installation, functional testing, and quality control'. The bypass is named too: 'We also face competition from non-traditional IT companies, including large Infrastructure-as-a-Service providers, that often buy their infrastructure directly from original design manufacturers. Competitive pressures could increase if customers choose to move existing workloads to these providers.' What survives as a moat is the part an ODM cannot sell an enterprise: a direct sales force and account teams, a global service and support footprint whose gross margin rate is still rising, storage that held revenue within 3% of flat through the whole mix shift, and Dell Payment Solutions financing that produces multiyear recurring arrangements. |
| Chain position | A hybrid-cloud platform, enterprise-AI (watsonx), and consulting provider to large enterprises — a software/cloud layer of the AI stack. | Developer and landlord of power-advantaged, liquid-cooled AI data-center capacity, leased long-term to CoreWeave and investment-grade hyperscalers. | Integrator between accelerator and component suppliers and enterprise or sovereign buyers: the 10-K says Dell purchases components from suppliers, sells them on to contract manufacturers, and performs 'assembly, software installation, functional testing, and quality control', then reaches customers through a direct sales force and a partner network that generated about 40% of Fiscal 2026 net revenue. |
| Products (share / barrier) |
|
|
|
| Long-horizon vote | +0.06 at weight 0.20 · swarm bearish Editorial prior, not backtested. | -0.20 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. | +0.05 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. |