Skip to content

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.

comparing IBM×JPMorgan Chase×Seagate Technology× maximum of 3 — remove one to swap
IBM IBM ai moat: latest change 2026-02-24 JPMorgan Chase JPM ai moat: latest change 2026-02-13 Seagate Technology STX ai moat: latest change 2026-08-04
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.

source: sec.gov

wide

The 2025 Form 10-K opens with a balance sheet and a licensing perimeter that a new entrant cannot assemble: $4.4 trillion in assets and $362.4 billion in stockholders' equity at December 31, 2025, a principal bank subsidiary (JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.) with branches in 48 states and Washington, D.C., 318,512 employees across 66 countries, and consolidated supervision as a bank and financial holding company by the Federal Reserve, layered with the OCC, FDIC, SEC, FINRA, CFTC, U.K. PRA/FCA and the ECB over its principal subsidiaries. Item 1 also notes the Bank Holding Company Act restricts holding companies to banking and closely-related activities, so the charter itself is scarce. Rated wide rather than higher because Item 1's own Competition paragraph calls the environments 'highly competitive' and names e-commerce, digital-asset and financial-technology entrants that 'disintermediate traditional banking products'.

source: sec.gov

narrow

The FY2026 10-K names Western Digital and Toshiba as the HDD competitors plus 'NAND flash suppliers that provide and enable alternative storage technologies' — a two-and-a-half-player market with a substitute technology pressing on it, defended by scale rather than lock-in.

source: sec.gov

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.

source: sec.gov

cost scale

The filing's durable advantage is scale rather than a proprietary technology or a stated network effect: $4.4 trillion of assets and $362.4 billion of equity, 318,512 employees, a 48-state branch footprint and a GSIB capital and liquidity regime administered under the Basel III framework. Item 1A repeatedly frames technology as a required expenditure - 'New technologies have required and could require JPMorganChase to increase expenditures to modify its products' and possible 'significant investments in technology' for quantum-resistant encryption - which is a fixed cost the firm spreads over a base few competitors match. The filing asserts no network effect and no switching-cost lock-in.

source: sec.gov

cost scale

The filing grounds its position in 'our areal density-driven technology roadmap' and 'vertically integrated engineering and manufacturing capabilities' — cost per terabyte at scale is the moat.

source: sec.gov

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.

source: sec.gov

co leader

Item 1 claims the firm is 'a leader' in five distinct businesses at once, and 'a leading financial services firm based in the United States' - but it claims to be 'a leader', never the leader, and names no rank or peer comparison anywhere in Item 1 or Item 1A. Scale disclosed in the filing (assets, equity, 318,512 employees, 66 countries, CCB 144,196 / CIB 94,563 / AWM 29,722 headcount) puts it in the front rank; the document itself supports a co-leader reading and not a sole-leader one.

source: sec.gov

co leader

The competition section names exactly two HDD rivals — Western Digital and Toshiba — making this one of three global suppliers of the technology.

source: sec.gov

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.

source: sec.gov

moderate

Item 1 states the businesses 'generally compete on the basis of the quality and variety of the Firm's products and services, transaction execution, innovation, reputation and price' - price is one of several axes, not absent. Item 1A is explicit that 'Actions by competitors could put pressure on the pricing for JPMorganChase's products and services or could cause it to lose market share, particularly with respect to investment products and traditional banking products,' and separately that higher rates can cause 'the loss of deposits, including where customers transition to higher-yielding products.' The filing states no margin trend supporting stronger pricing power.

source: sec.gov

weak

The filing's own list of competitive factors leads with capacity, performance and 'total cost of ownership' — buyers evaluate on delivered cost, and hyperscale customers purchase under master agreements with demand forecasts, which is buyer leverage.

source: sec.gov

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.

Item 1 describes JPMorganChase as 'a leader in investment banking, financial services for consumers and small businesses, commercial banking, financial transaction processing and asset management' operating off a $4.4 trillion balance sheet with $362.4 billion of equity as of December 31, 2025. The protection is the combination of that scale with a regulatory perimeter - Federal Reserve consolidated supervision, a national bank charter under the OCC, and separately licensed broker-dealer and credit-institution subsidiaries in the U.K. and Germany - that bounds who may offer the same product set. The filing is candid that the perimeter is leaking at the edges: it names non-depository and internet-only entrants offering lending, payments processing, cryptocurrency and stablecoins, tokenized securities and algorithmic investment advice, and warns of 'disruption to payments processing... from the use of new technologies that may not require intermediation'.

Seagate sells mass-capacity storage economics: HDDs to 44TB and systems to 3.5PB for hyperscalers, CSPs and OEMs, with the filing calling HDDs 'a foundational technology for delivering scalable, energy-efficient, mass-capacity storage with favorable storage economics.' The counterweight the same section names is NAND: flash suppliers 'enable alternative storage technologies,' so the moat is a cost race, not a fortress.

Chain position

A hybrid-cloud platform, enterprise-AI (watsonx), and consulting provider to large enterprises — a software/cloud layer of the AI stack.

An AI adopter and a possible AI casualty, not an AI supplier: the filing books no AI revenue line and mentions no data-center or model exposure, and instead carries a dedicated risk factor on 'the development of advanced technologies such as AI' warning of 'competitive disadvantage if competitors are able to deploy AI more quickly or effectively' and of 'replacement or disintermediation of direct customer relationships if AI agents autonomously manage or intermediate financial decisions' - so its AI exposure as filed is defensive and operational rather than a supply-chain position.

Layer-3 mass-capacity storage under every AI data lake.

Products (share / barrier)
Long-horizon vote +0.06 at weight 0.20 · swarm bearish

Editorial prior, not backtested.

see exactly how it voted →

+0.30 at weight 0.20 · swarm bullish

Editorial prior, not backtested.

see exactly how it voted →

+0.05 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral

Editorial prior, not backtested.

see exactly how it voted →