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.
| Palantir Technologies | Cerebras Systems | Tempus AI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moat rating | narrow The FY2025 10-K competition section concedes that some competitors have 'greater name recognition, longer operating histories, and larger customer bases', 'larger and more mature intellectual property portfolios', and 'substantially greater financial, technical, and other resources' — and that Palantir is 'fundamentally competing with the internal software development efforts of our potential customers'. A real moat exists but the filing's own disclosure caps it below wide. | narrow One-of-a-kind silicon sold to very few buyers: the IPO prospectus discloses G42 at 24.0% of 2025 revenue (85.0% in 2024), MBZUAI at 62.0% of 2025 revenue, and a December 2025 MRA with OpenAI representing 'a substantial portion of our projected revenues over the next several years' — against a competitive field the same document names as NVIDIA, AMD, Intel, hyperscaler accelerators and the major clouds. | narrow The FY2025 10-K documents a real asset: a network "connected in some way to more than 55% of all oncologists practicing in the United States" and "more than 65% of all academic medical centers," via "more than 700 unique data connections" across "more than 5,000 healthcare institution sites," with "broad data rights, including the rights to longitudinally updated data." Not eroding: revenue $693.4M to $1,271.8M (+83%), net loss narrowed from $705.8M to $245.0M. Not wide: still loss-making against "an accumulated deficit of $2.4 billion," with payment received on only "approximately 55% of our clinical oncology NGS tests and 50% of our hereditary tests." |
| Moat type | switching costs The 10-K reports that 'our top three customers by revenue for the year ended December 31, 2025, have been with us for an average of ten years' and that a significant portion of revenue comes from existing customers expanding their relationships. The filing explicitly disclaims patent dependence — 'we are not dependent on any particular patent or application' — so the durable source is embedded deployment, not IP. | intangibles ip Wafer-scale integration is the moat's substance: the prospectus contrasts the WSE-3's 4 trillion transistors on 46,225 mm² of silicon with NVIDIA's B200 at 208 billion on roughly 1,600 mm² — a commercial chip category with one occupant. | network effects The filing states the mechanism: "Each product line is designed to enable and enhance the other, thereby creating network effects." That is the filing's own characterisation, so the rating rests on corroborating facts: 700+ data connections across 5,000+ sites with longitudinal rights; roughly 801,000 tests in FY2025 (about 340,500 Oncology) feeding the records Insights licenses; Insights working with "19 of the 20 largest public pharmaceutical companies based on 2024 revenue" at "approximately 126%" net revenue retention. Intangibles fit less well: the xT PMA, ADLT status, Paige's clearance and five CAP/CLIA labs are real, but named peers hold comparable approvals. |
| Leadership | at parity The 10-K claims only that 'we believe we generally compete favorably with our competitors', while conceding rivals' greater scale, recognition and resources. The filing does not assert market leadership, so a leader band is not groundable from it. | clear leader Scoped to the category the record supports: wafer-scale integration has no other commercial occupant per the prospectus's own comparison, and the Q2 release claims — attributed, via AMD and AWS partnerships — leadership in disaggregated inference, a technique the prospectus defines. | at parity The filing claims no ranked lead; its positional language is hedged, as in "one of the largest sequencers of cancer patients... in the United States." Two disclosures cut the other way: the reimbursement goal is to become "more in line with other NGS providers who have adopted similar strategies, such as FMI and Guardant," and competitors "may have longer operating histories; larger customer bases; greater brand recognition and market penetration." Competition names Foundation Medicine (Roche), Caris, Guardant, Natera, Neogenomics, Quest, LabCorp, Flatiron, IQVIA, ConcertAI and major CROs, all unranked. Scaled positions on both sides support parity, not a top position. |
| Pricing power | strong FY2025 gross profit of $3.7 billion on a gross margin of 82% (84% excluding stock-based compensation), up from 80% (83% ex-SBC) in FY2024 — a sustained and rising 80%+ gross margin. | moderate The CFO states Q2 'significantly improved core gross and operating margins compared to a year ago' — improving, from a base where three named customers hold most of the revenue and the leverage that comes with it. | weak Diagnostics prices are administered: after a CPT code is set, "CMS, establish payment levels and coverage rules under Medicare," delegating to MACs, while "Private payers establish their rates and coverage rules independently." Average revenue per Oncology test rose from about $1,510 to about $1,600, "driven primarily by increased Medicare reimbursement rates" — the payer moved the price. Collection came on "approximately 55% of our clinical oncology NGS tests and 50% of our hereditary tests," and payer "cost-saving initiatives... are likely to result in pricing pressures." The moderate pocket is confined to Data and applications ($316.4M of $1,271.8M). |
| Summary | Customers who deploy Foundry model their operations in the Ontology and build workflows on top of it, so displacement means rebuilding that layer rather than swapping a vendor — which is why the 10-K frames its main competitor as the customer's own internal build effort. Ten-year average tenure among the top three customers is the filing's own evidence that those deployments persist. | Cerebras bet that AI compute should be one enormous chip rather than many small ones — 'quantities of compute and memory never before assembled on a single commercial chip,' avoiding 'the latency and the power-draw induced by the traditional approach,' in the prospectus's words — and is converting that bet into an inference cloud: Q2 2026 cloud revenue grew 281% with 600 MW of data center capacity under contract and $25.4 billion of remaining performance obligations. The concentration that funded the bet is the risk that remains: two related-party Gulf customers were 86% of 2025 revenue between them, with the OpenAI MRA now layered on top. | Tempus AI's durable asset is an installed provider network and the longitudinal data rights attached to it, not any single assay: connections to more than 55% of practicing U.S. oncologists and more than 65% of academic medical centers, 700+ data connections across 5,000+ institution sites. That network makes the linked clinical-molecular database sellable — Insights serves 19 of the 20 largest public pharmaceutical companies by 2024 revenue at roughly 126% net revenue retention, and the trial network (1,400+ trials signed, 40,000+ patients identified) depends on the sequencing base. Economics are improving: revenue up 83% to $1.27B, net loss down from $705.8M to $245.0M. It stops short of wide on the filing's own terms — a $2.4B accumulated deficit, payment on only ~55% of oncology and ~50% of hereditary tests, and Diagnostics prices set by CMS, MACs and private payers. |
| Chain position | Application-layer software sitting above the cloud and model providers; AIP connects to third-party LLMs rather than supplying them. | Layer-4 wafer-scale accelerators plus an inference cloud — hardware vendor and specialized cloud in one node. | Tempus sits between clinical care and pharma R&D. It ingests data from 5,000+ institution sites, runs five CAP/CLIA labs (Chicago, Atlanta, Raleigh, Aliso Viejo, Minneapolis via OneOme), and sells Diagnostics to providers and payers ($955.4M FY2025, +111%, administered) and Data and applications to pharma ($316.4M, +31%, negotiated). The clinical output is the data business's input. |
| Products (share / barrier) |
|
|
|
| Long-horizon vote | +0.11 at weight 0.20 · swarm bullish Editorial prior, not backtested. | +0.20 at weight 0.20 · swarm bearish Editorial prior, not backtested. | -0.01 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. |