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.
| NetApp | Snowflake | Powell Industries, Inc. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moat rating | narrow The FY2026 10-K shows a real, durable lock but not an unassailable one. On the durable side: "Our cloud storage services are based on the same ONTAP data management software that underpins our on-premises ONTAP storage infrastructure offerings", and the same filing's income statement shows the company holding a gross margin near 71% across all three reported years - $4,433M on $6,268M in FY2024, $4,613M on $6,572M in FY2025 and $4,899M on $6,925M in FY2026 - while revenue grew from $6,268M to $6,925M and income from operations widened from 19% to 24% of net revenues. Holding that margin through the memory-cost shock the same filing discloses is the commercial evidence the lock is worth something. On the limiting side, the filing says competition "is intense", that in public cloud "customers may choose native cloud services that are consumed as operating expenses", and that "New competitors or alliances among existing competitors could emerge and quickly gain significant market share" - and IDC's 1Q26 external-storage tracker (Blocks & Files, 2026-06-16, cited on the AFF/ASA product row below) ranks NetApp second behind Dell, not first. | narrow Narrow, not wide, because the FY2026 10-K documents a strong installed base and a competitive position the company itself says is under erosion. On the asset side: revenue of $4.7 billion (29% growth in each of the last three fiscal years), 13,328 total customers up from 10,996, 790 of the Forbes Global 2000 contributing about 43% of revenue, 733 customers above $1 million in trailing-12-month product revenue up from 576, a 125% net revenue retention rate, and more than 1,050 issued U.S. patents. Against that, Item 1A states plainly that adopting open data formats like Apache Iceberg means 'there is less customer “lock in” when our products are used in external environments' and that 'our support of open data formats may also reduce switching costs between us and our competitors'; that AWS, Azure and GCP 'generally compete in all of our markets' while also supplying the infrastructure a 'substantial majority of our business is run on'; and that the company remains loss-making at $1.3 billion of net loss for the year. | none The FY2025 10-K (filed 2025-11-19) says the company believes its integration capabilities, technical and project management acumen, application engineering expertise and specialty contracting experience 'give us a sustainable competitive advantage in our markets', and that 'a significant portion of our business is from repeat customers', many times involving EPC firms 'with whom we often have long, established relationships'. Neither the filing nor Powell's record shows that edge protecting returns. Item 1A warns 'Our industry is highly competitive' and says certain competitors 'may have lower cost structures' and 'may, therefore, be able to provide their products or services at lower prices'. Item 1 says products are 'typically awarded in competitive bid situations' and that projects 'are typically non-recurring.' Stored fundamentals from Powell's filings show operating margin between -4.9% and 7.1% in every fiscal year from FY2011 to FY2022, with operating losses in FY2017 (-$19.3M on $395.9M of revenue) and FY2018 (-$9.1M on $448.7M). Operating margin has since risen to 19.7% in FY2025 ($217.9M on $1,104.3M), but the 10-K credits the gross-margin gain to 'favorable volume leverage and strong project execution in a stable pricing environment', not to a competitive edge. A self-described advantage that left operating margin no higher than 7.1% in any year from FY2011 to FY2022 is not shown to be a moat, so the band is none. |
| Moat type | switching costs The FY2026 10-K makes the source of the advantage explicit and it is the cost of leaving the data-management layer, not a network or a patent estate. The same ONTAP software runs the on-premises arrays and the cloud services ("Our cloud storage services are based on the same ONTAP data management software that underpins our on-premises ONTAP storage infrastructure offerings"), and the AFF family "allows customers to connect to clouds for more data services, data tiering, caching, and disaster recovery". A customer's volume layout, snapshot and replication workflow and operating tools therefore carry from the array into Azure, AWS and Google rather than being abandoned at the cloud boundary — the filing describes NetApp as "the only provider of enterprise-grade storage services natively embedded in the world's largest public cloud providers", so the usual moment of escape is instead the moment the relationship renews. | switching costs The filing makes its own affirmative claim of network effects — 'Our business benefits from powerful network effects. ... The more customers adopt our platform, the more data can be exchanged with other Snowflake customers, partners, data providers, and data consumers' — but the load-bearing, quantified evidence in the document points to switching costs. The platform is sold as the way to 'consolidate data into a single source of truth,' and the disclosed economics of that consolidation are a 125% net revenue retention rate and 733 customers above $1 million in trailing product revenue. Item 1A confirms the mechanism by naming what is at risk: open formats produce 'less customer “lock in”' and 'may also reduce switching costs.' The filing frames lock-in, not network density, as the thing erosion would take away. | none The 10-K describes engineering know-how, not protected technology or lock-in. It says 'We consider our engineering, project management, systems integration and technical support capabilities vital to the success of our business', that 'Powell's expertise in vacuum circuit breaker engineering is internationally recognized', and that unpatented technology, including engineering technical skills and know-how, 'is important to our overall business'. It also says 'we believe that the growth of our business will depend primarily upon the quality of our products and our relationships with our customers, rather than the extent of our patent protection', so patents are not the source. Switching costs are not shown: projects are 'typically awarded in competitive bid situations' and 'typically non-recurring', even though 'a significant portion of our business is from repeat customers'. The same filing says some competitors 'are significantly larger and have substantially greater global resources such as engineering, manufacturing and marketing', so the know-how is a capability rivals also bring to each bid, not a demonstrated moat source; the type is none. |
| Leadership | co leader IDC's 1Q26 external enterprise storage systems tracker, as reported by Blocks & Files on 2026-06-16 (cited in full on the AFF/ASA product row below), ranks NetApp second worldwide behind Dell and ahead of Everpure, Huawei and HPE, attributing the placing to "its growing all-flash business and cloud-integrated data management". Second of five ranked vendors, in a market whose leader is someone else, is a shared front rank rather than an owned one - and the distinct claim NetApp makes in the FY2026 10-K is positional rather than volumetric: being "the only provider of enterprise-grade storage services natively embedded in the world's largest public cloud providers". | co leader The 10-K contains no ranking, market-share figure, or claim of leadership, and it names no non-hyperscaler competitor by name. The band rests on disclosed scale — $4.7 billion of revenue, 13,328 customers, 9,060 employees across 36 countries — set against the filing's own statement that 'many of our competitors have substantially greater brand recognition, customer relationships, and financial, technical, and other resources than we do.' Co-leader among independent cloud data platforms; not a leader over AWS, Azure and GCP, which the filing says compete in all of its markets. | at parity The 10-K gives no share or rank. It says Powell competes 'with a small number of multinational competitors', naming ABB, Eaton, Schneider and Siemens Industries, and that some are 'significantly larger and have substantially greater global resources'. It adds that bid evaluation varies 'from project to project', covering technical support, engineering and manufacturing capability, equipment rating, delivered value, scheduling and price. Powell therefore competes bid by bid alongside those multinationals rather than leading the category. |
| Pricing power | moderate It holds price rather than raising it. On the figures filed with the FY2026 10-K, gross margin was 70.7% of revenue in FY2024 ($4,433M on $6,268M), 70.2% in FY2025 ($4,613M on $6,572M) and 70.7% in FY2026 ($4,899M on $6,925M) - flat across three years in which revenue grew from $6,268M to $6,925M - and it held that level while absorbing a component-cost shock. It is no stronger than that because the filing's own risk factor lists "competitive pricing, customer price sensitivity" and "pricing and discounting pressures" among the drivers of gross margin, and discloses that the company "experienced inflationary pressure and supply chain constraints beginning in the second half of fiscal 2026, resulting in increased costs for memory and other components, which have affected our gross margins" - a cost shock it is absorbing rather than fully passing on. | moderate The consumption model plus 125% net revenue retention shows real expansion pricing, and the filing argues it competes on 'pricing transparency and optimized price-performance.' But Item 1A limits how far that goes: competition 'may negatively impact our ability to acquire new customers ... put downward pressure on our prices and gross margins'; the company 'may not be able to ... offer as many discounts or free services as our competitors'; results depend on 'changes in our pricing model, including in response to significant price discounts by our competitors' and on 'customer optimization efforts that result in reduced consumption.' On the cost side, 'our costs and gross margins are significantly influenced by the prices we are able to negotiate with these public cloud providers, which in certain cases are also our competitors.' | weak The 10-K says gross margin rose to 29% of revenue in FY2025 from 27% in FY2024, 'due to favorable volume leverage and strong project execution in a stable pricing environment'. The 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2026 (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/80420/000008042026000107/powl-20260630.htm) gives the same reason for 30% in the first nine months of FY2026, so neither filing credits price. Before this upcycle, stored fundamentals from Powell's filings show gross margin between 12.8% and 21.6% in every fiscal year from FY2011 to FY2022 (FY2022: $85.0M of gross profit on $532.6M of revenue, about 16%), which fits cyclical volume leverage more than pricing power. The limits are explicit: the 10-K says 'Fixed-price contracts can limit our ability to pass these increases to our customers', and Item 1A says certain competitors 'may, therefore, be able to provide their products or services at lower prices'. The one offset is cost pass-through, not price-setting: the 10-K says 'we believe we can manage this volatility through contract pricing adjustments'. Pricing power is rated weak. |
| Summary | NetApp sells storage hardware but the asset is ONTAP, the data-management software that has run its arrays for over three decades and now also runs inside the three largest public clouds as a first-party service. The FY2026 10-K organises the company into two segments, Hybrid Cloud (AFF and ASA all-flash arrays, AFX for AI workloads, FAS hybrid-flash, E/EF-Series, StorageGRID object storage) and Public Cloud (Azure NetApp Files, Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP, Google Cloud NetApp Volumes, Cloud Volumes ONTAP), and states that both rest on the same ONTAP software. That is the whole argument: an enterprise that has standardised its snapshots, replication and multiprotocol access on ONTAP carries those habits with it when it moves workloads to a hyperscaler, and NetApp is paid on both sides of the move. The evidence that the lock has commercial value is the margin's steadiness: across the three years the FY2026 10-K reports, gross margin sat at 70.7%, 70.2% and 70.7% of revenue ($4,433M on $6,268M, $4,613M on $6,572M, $4,899M on $6,925M) while revenue grew, and the filing's own percentage-of-revenue table shows no mix shift doing that work - product and services held near 46% and 54% of revenue throughout. The limits are equally in the filing. NetApp is second, not first: IDC's 1Q26 tracker puts it behind Dell in external enterprise storage, and the 10-K's competition section concedes that cloud providers are simultaneously partners and rivals, that consumption models "may reduce overall demand for our traditional on-premises offerings sold through a capital expenditure (capex) model", and that alternative architectures "may reduce or eliminate demand for some of our offerings". Component exposure is real too: the filing discloses "inflationary pressure and supply chain constraints beginning in the second half of fiscal 2026, resulting in increased costs for memory and other components, which have affected our gross margins", and names NAND among the components whose supply can tighten. This is a durable second place built on software stickiness, not a structural monopoly. | Snowflake's advantage in its FY2026 10-K rests on being the consolidation point for enterprise data: a multi-cluster shared-data architecture with proprietary columnar storage and automatic micro-partitioning, delivered across three major public clouds and 53 interconnected regional deployments, that customers adopt as a single governed source of truth and then expand on — 125% net revenue retention, 790 of the Forbes Global 2000 as customers. The filing layers a collaboration claim on top, with sharing 'generally without copying or moving the underlying data' and a Marketplace of 'hundreds of live, ready-to-query third-party data sets and data products.' The same document is unusually candid about the counter-pressure: Iceberg and open formats reduce lock-in by the company's own account, the three hyperscalers compete across every market while setting the cloud costs that 'significantly influence' gross margins, and frontier AI model providers 'may seek to vertically integrate ... by expanding into the data storage and management layers.' | Powell designs, builds and services custom-engineered power-distribution packages: power control rooms, E-Houses, switchgear and medium-voltage breakers. Its FY2025 10-K says the company believes its integration, project-management and application-engineering capabilities 'give us a sustainable competitive advantage in our markets', and that a significant portion of its business comes from repeat customers, often through EPC firms with which it has long relationships. The record does not show that edge protecting returns. Work is typically won in competitive bids, projects are typically non-recurring, and the 10-K names ABB, Eaton, Schneider and Siemens Industries as principal competitors, some of which it calls significantly larger. The company says it believes growth depends on product quality and customer relationships rather than patents. Stored fundamentals from Powell's filings show operating margin between -4.9% and 7.1% in every fiscal year from FY2011 to FY2022, with operating losses in FY2017 and FY2018. In the current cycle, gross margin reached 29% in FY2025 (10-K) and 30% in the first nine months of FY2026 (10-Q, quarter ended June 30, 2026, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/80420/000008042026000107/powl-20260630.htm). Both filings attribute that to favorable volume leverage and strong project execution 'in a stable pricing environment', not to price increases. The same 10-Q reports backlog of $2.4 billion and says diversification into electric utility and data centers 'has reduced the cyclicality of our business.' It also cautions that as data center projects become a larger component of backlog and revenues, the product mix may shift, 'as such projects will likely require less custom engineered-to-order equipment and systems than other end markets', which is the custom-engineering skill the claimed edge rests on. |
| Chain position | NetApp sits between the memory supply and the enterprise data centre. Upstream, the FY2026 10-K says "Third-party component costs make up a significant portion of our product costs" and singles out NAND as hard to manage "if supplies of certain components, including NAND, become limited relative to demand". Downstream, the hyperscalers are channel, partner and rival at once: the filing states "We both partner with and compete against cloud service providers through our cloud-based software and services offerings", while Azure NetApp Files, Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP and Google Cloud NetApp Volumes are delivered as those clouds' own natively embedded services. Distribution is a mix of direct sales and "an ecosystem of partners, including the leading cloud providers". | Sits at the enterprise data and governance layer of the AI stack, and the AI exposure is explicit rather than incidental: the filing brands the product the 'AI Data Cloud,' lists AI as a product category, and put Snowflake Intelligence, Cortex Agents and a Managed MCP Server into general availability during the fiscal year. It is a buyer of hyperscaler compute and of third-party frontier models — 'strategic partnerships with foundational model providers deliver state-of-the-art models natively within Snowflake Cortex AI,' with stated 'model neutrality' — and a supplier of governed enterprise data and GPU-backed managed compute to AI applications built on top. | Supplies custom-engineered switchgear and power control rooms to oil and gas, utility and commercial/industrial projects. Its Q3 FY2026 bookings included 'a data center project valued at over $400 million' (10-Q, quarter ended June 30, 2026, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/80420/000008042026000107/powl-20260630.htm). |
| Products (share / barrier) |
|
|
|
| Long-horizon vote | +0.13 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. | +0.13 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. | -0.06 at weight 0.20 · swarm bearish Editorial prior, not backtested. |