Compare moats

FY2025 10-K (filed 2025-08-19) grounds a narrow rating: on one side ~1,020 U.S. and ~1,100 foreign patents with expirations through 2045 plus vertically integrated wafer fabs (US, UK, Japan, Thailand) behind its laser chips and photonic ICs; on the other, Item 1A states optical communications products 'have increasingly become subject to commoditization' with 'predominantly Asia-based competitors' intensifying pricing pressure and a historical 'continued decline of average selling prices' expected to continue.

source: sec.gov

Corning's FY2025 Form 10-K (filed 12 February 2026) documents real protection in two places and hedges everywhere else. In Display it states flatly that 'We are the largest worldwide producer of glass substrates for flat panel displays' and credits a 'proprietary fusion manufacturing process, which we invented and is the cornerstone of our technology leadership in the display glass industry'; in Optical Communications it says 'We maintain a leadership position in the segment's principal product groups, which include carrier and enterprise networks'. But the Competition section opens on a company-wide concession - 'Some of these competitors are larger than we are, and some have broader product lines' - and closes that opening paragraph with 'There is no assurance that we will be able to maintain or improve our market position or competitive advantage', a hedge set over the five per-segment paragraphs that follow, the last of which has Life Sciences facing 'competition from large distributors that have pursued backward integration or introduced private label products'. In optical it expects 'industry consolidation, pricing pressure and competition for the innovation of new products' to persist. The risk factors add that Optical Communications and Display 'generate a significant amount of the Company's profits and cash flow' and are 'subject to pricing pressure', while the customer base is concentrated enough that customers 'may possess substantial leverage in negotiating contractual obligations' - the filing's own table puts two combined end customers at 28% of 2025 Optical Communications segment net sales, three at 59% of Display, two at 43% of Specialty Materials and three at 61% of Automotive. Protection that is genuine but confined to part of the portfolio, held against named larger rivals and customers with that much leverage, is narrow rather than wide.

source: sec.gov

Trane's FY2025 Form 10-K (filed 5 February 2026) makes exactly one rank claim about itself and it is hedged: 'We are one of the leading manufacturers in the world of HVAC systems and services and transport temperature control products and services'. It sits inside a Competitive Conditions section that opens 'Our products and services are sold in highly competitive markets throughout the world', describes 'a wide variety of competitors that vary by product line and services' including 'well-established regional or specialized competitors, as well as larger U.S. and non-U.S. corporations or divisions of larger companies', and names price first among 'the principal methods of competition in these markets', ahead of quality, delivery, service and support, technology and innovation. The risk factors push the same way: 'The markets that we serve are highly competitive', 'consolidation and new entrants (including non-traditional competitors) within our industries' 'could result in increased competition and pricing pressures', Trane competes 'with large companies and with smaller, local operators who may have customer, regulatory or economic advantages in the geographies in which they are located', and 'some of our competitors may employ pricing and other strategies that are not traditional'. What the filing does evidence is an advantage that gets paid for: 2025 net revenues of $21,321.9 million, up 7.5% from $19,838.2 million, of which the company's own bridge assigns 3.0 points to pricing; gross margin up 50 basis points to 36.2%; operating income of $3,967.4 million, 18.6% of revenues; and firm backlog up to $7,769.4 million from $6,747.7 million. But that advantage is not uniform in the same document: the EMEA pricing component was (0.3)% and its segment adjusted EBITDA margin fell 150 basis points to 18.3%, and Asia Pacific organic revenue fell 2.5% on 'lower volumes in China'. A position the company itself will only call 'one of the leading', defended in markets it calls highly competitive and priced unevenly across its three segments, is protection that is real but bounded.

source: sec.gov

Per the FY2025 10-K, the moat rests on intangibles/IP and process know-how: patent portfolio (~1,020 U.S. / ~1,100 foreign, ~780 pending), InP laser and photonic-integrated-circuit technology (Oclaro, NeoPhotonics acquisitions), coherent DSP/ASIC lines (IPG telecom transmission acquisition), and its own wafer fabrication, assembly and test facilities — the company states it does not broadly license its IP absent adequate consideration or cross-licenses.

source: sec.gov

What the filing keeps pointing at is invented process technology and the patent estate fencing it, not a network and not raw size. The FY2025 10-K repeats 'Patent protection is important to the segment's operations' word for word in four of its five reportable segments - Optical Communications, Specialty Materials, Automotive and Life Sciences - and gives Display a stronger variant, 'Patent protection and proprietary trade secrets are important to the Display segment's operations'. It reports about 11,375 unexpired patents owned worldwide at the end of 2025 (about 4,015 of them U.S.), about 370 U.S. and over 970 non-U.S. grants during 2025 and about 5,650 applications in process, and states 'We have historically enforced, and will continue to enforce, our intellectual property rights.' The single clearest asset is a process rather than a product - the fusion draw Corning says it invented and calls the cornerstone of its display-glass technology leadership, guarded in Display by 'proprietary trade secrets'. Even the cost advantage the filing claims in optical is sourced back to the same place: 'Our large-scale manufacturing experience, fiber process, technology leadership and intellectual property provide cost advantages relative to several of our competitors' - scale is described there as a consequence of the process, not the origin of the advantage, which is why this is an IP-and-know-how moat rather than a cost-scale one. The estate is broad rather than cliff-edged: 'no one patent is considered material to any segment', and about 740 worldwide patents, 6.5% of the portfolio, expire between 2026 and 2028.

source: sec.gov

The filing rules out the obvious alternative in its own words. Item 1's Patents and Licenses paragraph says the Company 'does not consider any single patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, proprietary technology, technical data, business process or any other confidential information (or any related group of any such items) to be of material importance to any segment or to the business as a whole', and the matching risk factor is blunter: 'we do not believe that our business is materially dependent on a single intellectual property right or any group of them. In our opinion, engineering, production skills and experience are more responsible for our market position than our patents and/or licenses.' That is a company disclaiming an IP moat. Where the 10-K does locate durability is the installed equipment and the channel wrapped around it. The overview frames the entire growth plan that way - 'As an industry leader with an extensive global install base, our growth strategy includes expanding recurring revenue through services and rental options' - the principal products and services table carries 'Service agreements', 'Repair and maintenance services', 'Parts and supplies (aftermarket and OEM)' and 'Rental services' alongside the equipment itself, the Distribution paragraph puts U.S. sales through Trane's own 'branch sales offices, distributors and dealers across the country' and non-U.S. sales through 'numerous subsidiary sales and service companies with a supporting chain of distributors throughout the world', and the accounting policy confirms the contracts are multi-period: 'For extended warranties and long-term service agreements, revenue for these distinct performance obligations are recognized over time on a straight-line basis over the respective contract term.' Long-lived equipment serviced under term agreements by the manufacturer's own branches is the asset this filing keeps pointing at, which is why the moat is read as an installed-base tie rather than a patent estate.

source: sec.gov

Mixed by layer: the FY2025 10-K self-describes Lumentum as 'a leading provider of optical and photonic products... recognized as an industry leader based on revenue and market share' (company's own characterization), while LightCounting's May 2026 optical vendor landscape places Lumentum near the bottom of its transceiver-only Top 10 — noting the list 'accounts for sales of optical transceivers only, excluding all other products, which explains lower rankings of Coherent and Lumentum' and that 'Neither CIG nor Lumentum plan to stay at the bottom of the list for much longer.' Co-leader in optical components/chips; follower in merchant transceiver modules behind Innolight and Eoptolink.

source: sec.gov

The FY2025 10-K makes exactly one unqualified rank claim and it is Display: 'We are the largest worldwide producer of glass substrates for flat panel displays', with only AGC Inc. and Nippon Electric Glass Co., Ltd. named as principal competitors. The second-strongest claim is Optical Communications' - 'We maintain a leadership position in the segment's principal product groups, which include carrier and enterprise networks' - asserted against Amphenol, Fujikura and its subsidiary America Fujikura Ltd., Sumitomo and Prysmian Group S.p.A. Those two lines carry the company: Optical Communications was 38% of total segment net sales in 2025 and Display 23%, and the segment table credits them with $1,048 million and $993 million respectively of the $2,747 million of reportable-segment net income. The band is a company-level judgment weighted to them, and it does not extend across the portfolio - Automotive claims only 'a strong market position', and Life Sciences describes itself as 'a leading developer, manufacturer and global supplier of laboratory products for over 110 years' while competing against the much larger Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. and Danaher Corporation on $972 million of 2025 sales.

source: sec.gov

The company's own claim is comparative but never exclusive: 'We are one of the leading manufacturers in the world of HVAC systems and services and transport temperature control products and services' - one of, with no rank, no share figure and no competitor named anywhere in the filing. Competitive Conditions sets that against 'well-established regional or specialized competitors, as well as larger U.S. and non-U.S. corporations or divisions of larger companies', and the risk factors add that Trane competes 'with large companies and with smaller, local operators who may have customer, regulatory or economic advantages in the geographies in which they are located'. The scale behind the claim is substantial and disclosed - $21,321.9 million of 2025 net revenues, products sold in approximately 100 countries, backlog of $7,769.4 million - but the 10-K never asserts the top position in any market it serves.

source: sec.gov

The May 5, 2026 Q3 FY2026 earnings release shows current pricing traction — CEO cites 'operational rigor, pricing discipline, and product mix' behind a 540 bps sequential non-GAAP gross-margin gain to 47.9% — but the FY2025 10-K states pricing pressures 'have led to a continued decline of average selling prices across our business and we expect that these historical trends will continue,' so power is cyclical/mix-driven rather than structural.

source: sec.gov

The FY2025 10-K shows prices being raised and sticking, and in the same breath shows what caps them. The results table puts gross margin at 36% of net sales in 2025 against 33% in 2024, and MD&A attributes the three-point gain to 'higher volume and the impact of actions taken by management to improve profitability, including raising prices, reducing costs and increasing productivity.' Display is the cleanest case: after resetting its core rate from 107 to 120 Japanese yen to the dollar, 'we implemented pricing actions in the second half of 2024', and 'The effects of the price increases on slightly higher volumes in 2025, compared to the prior period, substantially offset the impact of resetting the core rate.' The ceiling is disclosed in the same document: Optical Communications and Display are 'subject to pricing pressure', concentrated customers 'may possess substantial leverage in negotiating contractual obligations', and a risk factor warns that 'Increasing our prices to our customers may cause certain of our customers to push out, cancel or refrain from purchasing our products'. Price that holds on the back of rising volume, against customers that concentrated, is moderate rather than strong.

source: sec.gov

Price is a separately disclosed component of growth in this filing and it is positive: of the 7.5% increase in 2025 net revenues, the company's bridge assigns 3.0% to pricing against 3.2% volume, 0.8% acquisitions and 0.5% currency, and gross margin rose 50 basis points to 36.2% 'primarily due to gross productivity and price realization, partially offset by inflation'. In the Americas the price component was 3.8% of an 8.0% revenue increase, and that segment's adjusted EBITDA margin rose 70 basis points to 21.6% 'primarily due to price realization and gross productivity, partially offset by inflation and continued business reinvestment'. What holds the band below strong is in the same bridge and the same risk factors: EMEA pricing was (0.3)% and its segment margin fell 150 basis points to 18.3%; Asia Pacific pricing was 0.4% on organic revenue down 2.5%; consolidation and new entrants 'could result in increased competition and pricing pressures'; and 'in the event there is deflation, we may experience pressure from our customers to reduce prices.' Price that sticks in the Americas, disappears in EMEA and is disclaimed as durable in the risk factors is moderate rather than strong.

source: sec.gov

Upstream photonics supplier into AI/cloud datacenter and telecom infrastructure: sells transceivers, laser chips, CPO components and OCS to cloud operators, AI infrastructure providers and NEMs, and also supplies components to transceiver makers who compete with it ('Some of these competitors are also our customers' — FY2025 10-K). Concentrated demand: Customer A 16.0% and Customer B 15.4% of FY2025 net revenue; manufacturing concentrated in Thailand, China, UK, Slovenia, Japan and US with sole/limited-source component exposure.

Corning sits a layer beneath the AI build-out, supplying the glass and fiber rather than the compute. The FY2025 10-K describes 'optical fiber, cable and connectivity solutions for advanced communications networks, such as fiber to the home and data centers, enabling artificial intelligence', and says 'the rapid acceleration of artificial intelligence ("AI") is driving strong demand for fiber and connectivity products inside and between data centers', citing purpose-built parts such as the SMF-28e Contour fiber, 'a 40% smaller fiber', and the Contour Flow Cable 'which can fit double the fiber into the same cable diameter'. It also sells into chipmaking, through HPFS Fused Silica, ULE Ultra-Low Expansion Glass and the EXTREME ULE Glass introduced in 2024 to 'support chip manufacturers in meeting the rapidly growing demand for advanced and intelligent technologies'. The exposure is already in the numbers: Optical Communications net sales rose 35% to $6,274 million in 2025, which the filing attributes first to 'continued growth in our Enterprise business driven by strong demand for our Generative AI products'.

Trane sits on the facility side of the AI build-out rather than in the compute stack. Its FY2025 10-K lists 'Data center HVAC systems', 'Data center liquid cooling solutions', 'Data center facility controls' and 'Data center services' among its principal products and services, alongside 'Thermal energy storage' and 'Smart and AI-enabled services'. Those four entries are the only occurrences of the phrase in the entire filing: there is no data center revenue figure, no ranking, no named competitor and no separate reporting - segment disclosure stops at Americas, EMEA and Asia Pacific, and the MD&A attributes the Americas' 7.4% organic growth to 'realization of price increases and higher volumes led by strong demand within our Commercial HVAC business' without naming an end market.

• Datacom optical transceivers & data interconnects Challenger · Moderate source: lightcounting.com
• High-speed laser chips & optical components Leader · Deep source: sec.gov
• Industrial & consumer lasers (incl. 3D-sensing VCSELs) Challenger · Moderate source: sec.gov
• Optical circuit switches (OCS) Niche · Moderate source: sec.gov
• Telecom transmission & transport Top 3 · Deep source: sec.gov

• Automotive ceramic substrates and particulate filters Unknown · Moderate source: sec.gov
• Corning Gorilla Glass cover materials Unknown · Moderate source: sec.gov
• Display glass substrates Leader · Deep source: sec.gov
• Hemlock hyper-pure polysilicon and solar products Unknown · Low source: sec.gov
• Life Sciences labware and consumables Unknown · Low source: sec.gov
• Optical fiber, cable and connectivity solutions Leader · Moderate source: sec.gov
• Semiconductor and precision optics Unknown · Moderate source: sec.gov

• Commercial HVAC systems, controls and building solutions Top 3 · Moderate source: sec.gov
• Data center cooling and facility controls Unknown · Moderate source: sec.gov
• HVAC services, aftermarket parts and rental Top 3 · Moderate source: sec.gov
• Residential HVAC Unknown · Moderate source: sec.gov
• Thermo King transport refrigeration Top 3 · Moderate 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 →