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 IREN×Duolingo×GitLab× maximum of 3 — remove one to swap
IREN IREN ai moat: latest change 2026-08-27 Duolingo DUOL ai moat: latest change 2026-05-04 GitLab GTLB ai moat: latest change 2026-08-05
Moat rating none

The FY2026 10-K (filed 2026-08-27) shows IREN holds an input the industry competes on: it names 'access to secured and energized power' first among what it believes are the principal competitive factors in its industry, and reports 'executed grid connection agreements, letters of agreement or equivalents representing approximately 5GW of total power capacity' in the United States, Canada, Spain and Australia as of June 30, 2026. It does not claim an advantage over rivals in that input. It says 'Certain competitors may have access to more competitively priced power, a greater access to power and a better capacity to timely secure grid connections,' and 'Many of our competitors have greater financial, technical or commercial resources, longer cloud operating histories or larger customer bases, compared to us.' Operating AI Cloud Services capacity was approximately 40MW at June 30, 2026, and the stored XBRL fundamentals from this 10-K show an FY2026 operating loss of about $1,046.7M on revenue of about $707.0M, so no durable advantage is yet demonstrated.

source: sec.gov

narrow

Wide is ruled out by the company's own Item 1A, which concedes "low switching costs" and that "Low barriers to entry allow start-up companies with lower costs and less pressure for profitability to compete with us." It sits well above none because Q4 DAUs grew 30% to 52.7M, DAU/MAU rose to 39.6% from 34.7%, and marketing took only 12% of FY2025 revenue, though that ratio was flat versus FY2024 and gross margin fell to 72.2% from 72.8%. It stays narrow rather than eroding because Q1 FY2026 DAUs and paid subscribers each grew 21%.

source: sec.gov

narrow

The FY2026 10-K (year ended 2026-01-31) shows real expansion inside the installed base: 118% Dollar-Based Net Retention, Base Customers up to 10,682 from 9,893, customers above $100,000 of ARR up to 1,456 from 1,229, and $1.0 million ARR customers "to 155 from 123, an increase of 26%". But the filing concedes "limited barriers to entry" and names "Microsoft Corporation, which owns GitHub" as principal competitor. Retention decelerates (130% FY2024, 123% FY2025, 118% FY2026), and since DBNR is reported "on a threshold basis of 130%," the FY2024 figure is a cap and the slide is steeper than it looks. Narrow, not wide: expansion must be re-won against a bundled hyperscaler.

source: sec.gov

Moat type none

The FY2026 10-K's asserted advantage is control from owning its data centers, 'including the associated land, grid connections and substations', which it believes allows it 'to benefit from more sustainable cash flows and operational flexibility relative to operators that rely upon third-party colocation services or short-term land leases'. Its only scale language is a belief that its 'procurement scale, deployment experience and direct control over the data center layer' lets it bring new compute into service 'rapidly and at scale', a deployment-speed claim, and it 'generally target[s]' regions with 'low-cost and attractive renewable energy sources', a siting target rather than a demonstrated cost position. It does not claim a cost or scale lead: it says 'Many of our competitors are larger, have longer operating histories and significantly greater resources than we do' and that certain competitors 'may have access to more competitively priced power, a greater access to power and a better capacity to timely secure grid connections.' There is no network effect or lock-in either, since existing contracts have 'terms ranging from month to month up to five years'. No enumerated moat source is grounded.

source: sec.gov

intangibles ip

The intangible is the consumer brand, not patents: Item 1 says "For many, Duolingo has become synonymous with language learning" and that growth is "organic, primarily driven by word-of-mouth and brand buzz," while the IP section discloses only "two patent applications." Switching costs are ruled out by the filing's own "low switching costs" caption. The data-scale support is the filing's own characterisation, and the brand is admittedly damageable: an April 2025 AI memo "may have contributed to unfavorable publicity, adverse impacts on the Company's brand and social media presence, and a deceleration in user growth."

source: sec.gov

switching costs

Stickiness comes from platform embedding, not IP. The 10-K rests differentiation on "our single platform with a unified data model," on "Consolidation of multiple tools into a single platform," and on deployment inside the customer's own perimeter for regulated buyers. Replacement means re-integrating a toolchain and re-certifying compliance. IP is the wrong label: only "16 issued patents and 25 pending patent applications," plus open-source licenses granting "broad permissions to use, copy, modify, and redistribute." The no-lock-in claim is the filing's own characterisation, footnoted to a Forrester study "commissioned by GitLab."

source: sec.gov

Leadership behind

The 10-K lists IREN's competitors as hyperscalers (Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure, Oracle Cloud) and specialized AI Cloud Services providers (CoreWeave, Nebius, Crusoe, Lambda, Nscale, SpaceX and others). It says IREN began providing AI Cloud Services in 2024 and cites its 'shorter operating history in AI Cloud Services relative to some competitors', and states 'Some of our competitors have longer operating histories, larger customer bases, more comprehensive IP portfolios and patent protections, more design wins, and greater financial, sales, marketing and distribution resources than we do.' Operating AI Cloud Services capacity was approximately 40MW at June 30, 2026. The filing describes a smaller, later entrant that trails some competitors on operating history, customer base and resources, with its progress so far resting on two anchor contracts (a ~$9.7B five-year Microsoft agreement and a ~$3.4B five-year NVIDIA contract) rather than any claimed category position.

source: sec.gov

clear leader

Leadership holds within consumer app-based language learning, anchored on one externally checkable claim in Item 1: the app "is also the top-grossing app globally in the Education category on both Google Play and the Apple App Store," with "over 250 total language courses to more than 130 million monthly active users" as of 2025-12-31. The broader "leading market position" claim is the filing's own characterisation, and no third-party share statistic appears anywhere in the 10-K, so a band is recorded and no percentage transcribed. The band does not extend to assessment, literacy, math, music, chess or offline learning, where the filing claims no position.

source: sec.gov

fast follower

The 10-K positions GitLab against a leader rather than as one: "Our principal competitor is Microsoft Corporation, which owns GitHub." Competition reads from the challenger side, differentiating "from GitHub through flexible deployment options that work within enterprise security and compliance requirements, LLM neutrality with self-hosted gateway support" and an open core model. On AI it follows: Duo Agent Platform went "Generally available in January 2026," the last month of the fiscal year. What keeps it a follower rather than behind is cadence, "a new version of our software every month for 172 months in a row," plus a regulated-deployment franchise a SaaS-first rival does not cover.

source: sec.gov

Pricing power weak

The 10-K's risk factors state 'Our competitors' products, services and technologies may be cheaper or provide better functionality or features than ours, which has resulted and may in the future result in lower-than-expected selling prices or demand for our products.' They also say long-term contract pricing 'is generally fixed or agreed at the time of contracting', so if market pricing for comparable capacity rises during a contract's term 'we will not benefit from those increases with respect to capacity already committed under our existing long-term contracts', and that if customers suffer a downturn or discontinue its services it 'may be compelled to offer more flexible terms, lower our prices or risk losing a significant customer.' The stored XBRL fundamentals from this 10-K show FY2026 revenue of about $707.0M against an operating loss of about $1,046.7M, so there is no margin record yet that evidences pricing power.

source: sec.gov

weak

Every mechanism is cost, mix or volume, never price. FY2025 gross margin fell to 72.2% from 72.8% on "increased AI costs used in features like Video Call" and an advertising mix shift; the Q1 FY2026 gain to 73.0% came from "continued reductions in per-unit AI costs," with margin guided to about 71.0% in Q2 and "approximately 69.0% by Q4." The filing concedes it "may not be able to fully offset such higher costs through price increases." Subscription revenue rose 44% to $873.4 million "primarily due to an increase in the average number of paid subscribers," and the cap is self-imposed: "We intentionally do not put our learning content behind a paywall."

source: sec.gov

moderate

FY2026 gross margin was 87% against 89%, with cost of revenue up $35.6 million "primarily due to an increase of $18.4 million in third party hosting costs for SaaS and cloud usage," and management expects SaaS and Duo mix to bring costs that "may adversely impact our gross margins." Strain is explicit: GitLab "may be required to reduce our prices," competitors "may offer their products and services at a lower price or for free," and it "implemented user limits on our free SaaS product." Power retained: Premium lists at $29 per user/month billed annually, and seats bundle $12 and $24 of GitLab Credits. But "A majority of our subscriptions are on a one-year period."

source: sec.gov

Summary

Per its FY2026 10-K, IREN is a vertically integrated AI Cloud Services platform that owns the data center, compute and software layers, underpinned by executed grid connection agreements, letters of agreement or equivalents representing ~5GW and a further multi-GW development pipeline. Its commercial record is concentrated: a five-year Microsoft agreement (~$9.7B total contract value, Horizon 1 delivered and accepted in August 2026, Horizons 2-4 targeted for delivery in phases in calendar Q4 2026) and a five-year ~$3.4B NVIDIA cloud contract together make up a substantial majority of contracted revenue. It holds NVIDIA Preferred Partner and Exemplar Cloud status (HGX B300 and GB300 NVL72) and a strategic partnership intended to support the deployment over time of up to 5GW of NVIDIA DSX-aligned infrastructure, which the filing cites among arrangements that are non-binding or subject to conditions, with no assurance as to the extent of deployments. Against that, the filing names hyperscaler and specialized competitors (AWS, Google Cloud, Azure, Oracle, CoreWeave, Nebius, Crusoe, Lambda, Nscale, SpaceX), many of which it says have greater resources, customers that can use or develop their own solutions, and possible delays to Texas energization from changes to ERCOT's Batch Zero procedures, so the power position is not a demonstrated advantage over rivals and its value depends on execution.

Duolingo's moat is essentially one asset — a consumer brand strong enough that the filing claims people "search for the term 'Duolingo' much more often than 'learn Spanish'" — sitting on real but not defensive scale. It converts into economics through organic acquisition: sales and marketing took 12% of FY2025 revenue while Q4 DAUs grew 30% to 52.7 million and DAU/MAU rose to 39.6% from 34.7%. It is not wide, because the company supplies both disqualifiers itself: "low switching costs" and "Low barriers to entry allow start-up companies with lower costs and less pressure for profitability to compete with us." Width and pricing power diverge: Duolingo will not price against its own free product, grows subscription revenue by adding subscribers ($873.4 million, up 44%), and guides gross margin down to roughly 69% by Q4 FY2026 "as AI feature use expands in our products."

GitLab sells a single-platform DevSecOps toolchain defended by workflow lock-in rather than intellectual property: a unified data model plus deployment flexibility, including single-tenant "Dedicated for Government with FedRAMP compliance," makes it hard to remove where data residency is contractual. The installed base expands: 118% Dollar-Based Net Retention, 10,682 Base Customers, 1,456 above $100,000 of ARR, 155 above $1.0 million (up 26%), over 70% of ARR from public sector and enterprise. The filing supplies the counterweight: "limited barriers to entry," Microsoft/GitHub as principal competitor, 16 issued patents. Retention (130 to 123 to 118, the 130 a cap), gross margin (89% to 87%) and a January 2026 AI launch point to compression at the commodity end. No source measures market share, so every share band is "unknown".

Chain position

Downstream AI-cloud operator: owns grid-connected data centers and deploys NVIDIA/AMD GPU systems it rents to hyperscalers, frontier labs, AI developers and enterprises (anchor customers Microsoft and NVIDIA).

A consumer AI application and net buyer of model inference. The filing ties its margin line directly to inference cost, attributing the FY2025 subscription gross-margin decline to "increased AI costs used in features like Video Call" and guiding margin to approximately 69.0% by Q4 FY2026 "as AI feature use expands," while the Q1 FY2026 beat came from "reductions in per-unit AI costs."

GitLab sits at the software-tooling layer, not compute or models. It consumes third-party LLM capacity — marketing "LLM neutrality and support for self-hosted AI gateways, including air-gapped environments" — so it captures no model-layer economics and bears inference as COGS, visible in the $18.4 million rise in hosting costs. Its distinctive position is the regulated perimeter.

Products (share / barrier)
  • AI Cloud Services (bare metal and managed GPU compute) Unknown · Moderate source: sec.gov
  • AI infrastructure software (Mirantis k0rdent AI) Unknown · Low source: sec.gov
  • Bitcoin mining (in wind-down) Unknown · Low source: sec.gov
  • Owned data centers and grid-connected power portfolio Unknown · Moderate source: sec.gov
  • Enterprise Agile Planning add-on Unknown · Low source: sec.gov
  • GitLab Dedicated (including Dedicated for Government) Unknown · Deep source: sec.gov
  • GitLab DevSecOps Platform (Free, Premium, and Ultimate tiers) Unknown · Moderate source: sec.gov
  • GitLab Duo Agent Platform (with GitLab Credits) Unknown · Low source: about.gitlab.com
  • Self-Managed GitLab (on-premises and hybrid cloud deployment) Unknown · Deep source: sec.gov
Long-horizon vote -0.20 at weight 0.20 · swarm bearish

Editorial prior, not backtested.

see exactly how it voted →

+0.13 at weight 0.20 · swarm bearish

Editorial prior, not backtested.

see exactly how it voted →

+0.06 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral

Editorial prior, not backtested.

see exactly how it voted →