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×Vistra×Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX)× maximum of 3 — remove one to swap
IREN IREN ai moat: latest change 2026-08-27 Vistra VST ai moat: latest change 2026-08-06 Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) SPCX ai moat: latest change 2026-08-06
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

The 10-K states that "the majority of our facilities operate as “merchant” facilities without long-term power sales agreements" and that Vistra is "not guaranteed any rate of return on our capital investments". Against that, the scarcity is real: six NRC-licensed nuclear units totalling 6,448 MW, licences running 2036-2053, inside a 43,641 MW fleet, plus 20-year PPAs with AWS (1,200 MW) and Meta (2,609 MW). The 2025 gas additions - Lotus (2,600 MW, closed October 2025) and pending Cogentrix (5,500 MW) - extend the merchant gas side, not the nuclear scarcity. Only the 433 MW of uprates extends the moat asset.

source: sec.gov

narrow

The moat is narrow rather than wide. The filing names real entry barriers in launch — capital, technological expertise, licences and established government and commercial relationships — and adds spectrum and orbital resources in connectivity, while warning that the company's "leadership position in various markets, especially in orbital launch services" could attract competition-law scrutiny. The AI segment has barriers too: "Our AI businesses likewise compete in markets characterized by significant barriers to entry." Durability is capped by three-to-five-year satellite lives that force perpetual replacement launches, but the moat is not eroding: subscribers are 12.0M against 6.0M.

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 intangibles are non-replicable regulatory assets rather than patents: six nuclear licences (Comanche Peak 2050/2053, Perry 2046, Davis-Besse 2037, Beaver Valley 2036/2047), fuel "contracted to support all our refueling needs through 2030", section 45U credits "recognizing the value of existing carbon-free nuclear power", and TXU Energy, sold "for over 20 years" and "registered and protected by trademark law". Read 45U as a floor, not moat strength: the 2025 credit was $220m against $545m in 2024, and it "provides increasing levels of support as unit revenues decline". Efficient scale does not apply.

source: sec.gov

cost scale

The advantage is cost and scale. The stated model is extreme vertical integration plus reusability driving unit cost down: per NASA, the first Falcon 9 cut launch cost to about $2,700/kg, roughly 85% below the $18,500/kg historical average, and Falcon 9 has "demonstrated the ability to refly a first-stage 34 times" (3/31/26). The filing credits rising cadence, cargo capacity and "declining unit costs—driven by rapid reusability—have generated a compounding competitive advantage". SpaceX also launches its own constellation, and Competition notes "some of these service providers are also launch customers of SpaceX". Spectrum and licence intangibles reinforce the cost advantage.

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

co leader

Vistra describes itself as "one of the largest producers of power in deregulated markets in the U.S." with over 230 TWh generated, "one of the largest competitive power generators in the U.S. as measured by MWh of generation capacity", "one of the largest electricity generators in the U.S.", and "one of the largest competitive residential retail electricity providers". That hedged phrasing appears four times and is the strongest claim the filing makes. The 10-K names no competitor and assigns no rank, so co-leader is the ceiling the disclosure supports.

source: sec.gov

clear leader

SpaceX leads clearly in its two established segments but not in its newest. The prospectus calls it "the primary launch provider for the U.S. government" — 11 of 12 NSSL medium and heavy lift missions and all five U.S. crew and cargo ISS missions for NASA in 2025 — and says Starlink is "the sole low-latency network available globally", low-latency self-defined as under 70ms; it flags competition-law scrutiny risk from that leadership. AI is the exception, with OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta and Microsoft named as competitors, some with greater resources, in a segment the filing calls early stage. Cadence slipped: H1 2026 Falcon launches 77 versus 81, mass to orbit 1,041t versus 1,102t.

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

Vistra is a merchant price taker. Price formation rests on "the highest variable cost unit that clears the market", prices are "unpredictable and may fluctuate substantially", hedging markets have "limited liquidity after two to three years", and competing retailers "may offer different products, lower electricity prices and other incentives". ERCOT's $2,000/MWh figure is the low system-wide offer cap, applied conditionally when the peaker net margin exceeds three times CONE or under the PUCT Emergency Pricing Program, not a standing cap. PJM has "announced that it would propose" extending its capacity cap to 2028-29 and 2029-30, subject to FERC approval.

source: sec.gov

moderate

Pricing power is moderate — a deliberate give-back from a cost position rather than weakness. Management states its strategy is "rather than prioritizing increases in ARPU" and expects Starlink ARPU to keep declining as it adds lower-priced plans and adjusts monthly service fees; the Q2 10-Q shows ARPU of $66 versus $85 while Connectivity operating income rose 79.4%. Launch sells on fixed-price contracts, one to five years for Launch Services and up to fourteen for Launch and Development. Concentration is material: about one-fifth of 2025 revenue came from U.S. federal agencies, with all launch contracts firm fixed-price and terminable at the government's convenience without advance notice.

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.

Vistra's moat is one scarce asset wrapped in a commodity business. Six NRC-licensed nuclear units - 6,448 MW, licences running 2036-2053 - sit inside a 43,641 MW fleet that the 10-K says operates in the majority as "merchant" facilities with no long-term power sales agreements and no guaranteed rate of return. That block cannot be rebuilt by a rival, and is now partly de-risked by 20-year PPAs with AWS (1,200 MW from Comanche Peak) and Meta (2,609 MW from the PJM plants) plus section 45U credits. Everything else - 26,989 MW of gas, 8,743 MW of coal, the 5m-customer retail book - competes on price in markets Vistra does not set, against entrants the filing says keep building "despite relatively low power prices". The 2025 growth was gas M&A (Lotus, pending Cogentrix), which widens the commodity-exposed side. Narrow, for a specific reason: the moat is 15% of the fleet.

Two real moats and one expensive bet. Launch and Starlink rest on facts the filing states outright: barriers of capital, technology, licences, spectrum and orbital resources; about 9,600 satellites, roughly 75% of all active maneuverable satellites in orbit; the only globally available low-latency network; a NASA-cited cost per kilogram about 85% below the historical average; a first stage reflown 34 times. Connectivity rivals buy launches from it. What caps it: satellites live three to five years and must be perpetually replaced; H1 2026 Falcon launches and mass to orbit both fell and Falcon 9 flights are expected to decline; about 20% of 2025 revenue is U.S. federal, competitively bid and terminable at will; 86% of Q2 capex ($15.8bn of $18.4bn) went to an AI segment whose cloud revenue sits with few customers on 90-day-terminable contracts. Q2 operating loss $143M; H1 loss $2,086M.

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).

Merchant IPP: sells energy, capacity and ancillary services into ISO/RTO spot and short-term wholesale markets (ERCOT, PJM, ISO-NE, NYISO, CAISO, MISO) and resells to ~5m retail customers. Emerging role as long-term nuclear offtake supplier to hyperscalers (AWS, Meta). Not a price setter at any link.

—
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
  • Coal and lignite generation fleet Unknown · Low source: sec.gov
  • Long-term large-load / data-centre power offtake (AWS and Meta PPAs) Unknown · Deep source: sec.gov
  • Natural gas generation fleet (CCGT and peaking) Unknown · Low source: sec.gov
  • Nuclear generation fleet (Comanche Peak, Perry, Davis-Besse, Beaver Valley) Unknown · Deep source: sec.gov
  • Retail electricity and natural gas (TXU Energy, Ambit, Dynegy Energy Services, Homefield, Energy Harbor, U.S. Gas & Electric) Unknown · Low source: sec.gov
  • Vistra Zero - solar and battery energy storage Unknown · Low source: sec.gov
Long-horizon vote -0.20 at weight 0.20 · swarm bearish

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 →

+0.20 at weight 0.20 · swarm bearish

Editorial prior, not backtested.

see exactly how it voted →