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 | Tesla, Inc. | Cisco Systems | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 Tesla's FY2025 10-K calls the automotive market "highly competitive" and expects it to "become even more competitive," and its energy-storage market "also highly competitive"; gross margin compressed from ~25.6% (FY2022) to ~18% (FY2023-FY2025) amid price cuts — a real but contested moat, not a wide one. | narrow The FY2025 10-K shows a moat that still pays but no longer compounds: total gross margin of 64.9% and remaining performance obligations of $43,533 million (up 6%) against a Networking product category that fell from $34,570 million in fiscal 2023 to $29,229 million in fiscal 2024 to $28,304 million in fiscal 2025, and a product gross-margin bridge in which 'Product pricing' subtracted 1.6 percentage points. All of the reported category growth came from Splunk-carrying lines - Security +59% and Observability +26%. Real and durable, but bounded: narrow, not wide. |
| 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. | intangibles ip The 10-K attributes Tesla's differentiation to a "vertically integrated business model, and focus on user experience," delivering "AI-related and enhanced software" via FSD (Supervised) and neural-network capabilities — a brand-plus-proprietary-technology (EV/battery + autonomy) intangible edge. | switching costs The durable piece is the contracted annuity attached to installed equipment: total remaining performance obligations of $43,533 million, of which $21,961 million is services and $21,810 million is long-term (recognised beyond twelve months), carried at a services gross margin of 68.5% that has risen for three consecutive years from 66.4% and 68.1%. Customers keep paying for support on gear they already run. |
| 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 A leading global EV maker whose Model Y is among the world's best-selling vehicles, but the 10-K acknowledges "a significant and growing number of established and new" competitors entering EVs, and Tesla competes in autonomy/robotics as one of several players. | co leader The 10-K names no competitor and discloses no market share anywhere in Management's Discussion and Analysis. The positional facts it does give are scale and direction: Networking product revenue of $28,304 million in fiscal 2025 - by far the largest of its four categories - but down $6.3 billion from fiscal 2023, with channel partner financing volume falling from $32.1 billion to $27.1 billion to $24.9 billion across fiscal 2023-2025. |
| 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 Gross margin fell from ~25.6% (FY2022) to ~18.0% (FY2025) as Tesla cut prices to defend volume, though it remains above most auto peers (SEC financials in the FY2025 10-K). | moderate The product gross-margin bridge attributes fiscal 2025's 0.2-point improvement to productivity (+2.0 points) and mix (+1.1 points) while 'Product pricing' subtracted 1.6 points; a legal dispute with a supplier cost a further 0.8 points. Total gross margin of 64.9% (product 63.7%, services 68.5%) is held by cost and mix, not by price. |
| 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. | Tesla's edge rests on a vertically integrated manufacturing model, a strong brand, the Supercharger network, a fast-growing energy-storage business, and the largest supervised-FSD fleet feeding its autonomy neural networks. But its FY2025 10-K itself calls both the automotive and energy-storage markets "highly competitive" and expects auto to become "even more competitive," and gross margin has compressed from ~26% to ~18%, so the moat is durable but contested rather than wide. | The installed base still switches slowly - but the filing does not claim it is winning the AI datacenter on the strength of that base. The fiscal 2025 Networking decline is attributed to 'product shipments returning to normalized levels during the first half of fiscal 2025 from the elevated levels ... in the first half of fiscal 2024', to servers, and to 'a decline in campus switching' - normalisation, not disclosed share loss, so the whitebox/Arista thesis is not something this 10-K either confirms or denies. What the filing does disclose is the shape of the AI dollar Cisco is actually winning: Americas service provider and cloud growth 'driven by AI infrastructure revenue from webscale customers', funded by additional purchase commitments 'related to manufacturing Cisco Silicon One and other products to meet demand from webscale and other customers', which 'significantly increased our supply chain exposure, which has resulted in negative impacts to our product gross margin in recent periods and may result in further negative impacts in future periods'. Enterprise switching earns 63.7% product gross margin; webscale silicon costs margin to serve. The moat is intact where the annuity is and thin where the growth is. |
| 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". | Downstream AI application/end-user: consumes AI compute (NVIDIA) and custom inference silicon (Samsung/TSMC) to build autonomy (FSD/Robotaxi) and robotics (Optimus). | Supplies networking into AI datacenters: the 10-K ties Americas service provider and cloud growth to 'AI infrastructure revenue from webscale customers' and to Cisco Silicon One manufacturing commitments. |
| 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. | +0.13 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. |