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 ServiceNow×Marvell Technology×Amphenol× maximum of 3 — remove one to swap
ServiceNow NOW ai moat: latest change 2026-08-05 Marvell Technology MRVL ai moat: latest change 2026-03-11 Amphenol APH ai moat: latest change 2026-02-11
Moat rating narrow

The FY2025 10-K shows RPO of $28.2 billion, up 27%; customers above $5 million of ACV at 603, 502 and 420 as of December 31 2025, 2024 and 2023; revenue of $13,278 million, up 21%; and a 98% renewal rate for three years. That rate cannot prove durability: the filing computes it excluding "changes in price or users," says it "does not reflect increased or decreased purchases," and warns "period-to-period comparison of renewal rates may not be meaningful." The company also calls its market "characterized by fragmentation, low barriers to entry." Real switching costs plus compounding large accounts support narrow; wide would need durability proof this filing lacks.

source: sec.gov

narrow

FY2026 10-K (filed 2026-03-11): differentiated platform IP — over 10,000 issued patents and pending applications as of 2026-01-31, plus a proven custom ASIC platform leveraging ultra-high-speed SerDes, silicon photonics, co-packaged optics and custom HBM — but Marvell itself calls its markets 'intensely competitive' with 'pricing pressures', notes customers 'have chosen to develop certain semiconductor products internally', and discloses two >=10% customers with the ten largest at 82% of FY2026 net revenue. Real, defensible IP in a concentrated, contestable customer base = narrow, not wide. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1835632/000183563226000011/mrvl-20260131.htm

source: sec.gov

narrow

The FY2025 10-K describes a real, well-defended position but declines every claim that would make it structural. The strength is in how Amphenol gets designed in: it 'works closely with its customers at the design stage to create and manufacture innovative solutions', and the R&D discussion says this 'often results in the Company obtaining approved vendor status for its customers' new products and programs'. The demand side reinforces it — 'for many years, customers have generally been consolidating their lists of qualified suppliers to companies that have the ability to meet certain technical, quality, delivery and other standards while maintaining geographic flexibility and competitive prices'. Against that, the Competition section opens with 'the Company encounters competition in all areas of its business', lists price among the five bases on which it competes ('technology innovation, product quality and performance, price, customer service and delivery time'), and names thirteen primary competitors: Aptiv, Belden, Corning, Foxconn Interconnect Technology, Glenair, HUBER+SUHNER, ICT Luxshare, Jonhon, Molex, Rosenberger, Sensata, TE Connectivity and Yazaki, 'among others', plus 'a large number of smaller companies who compete in specific geographies, markets or products'. The IP section explicitly declines the patent story: 'we do not believe that our competitive position or our operations are dependent upon or would be materially impacted by the loss of any single patent or group of related patents'. Scale is real but not commanding — the filing estimates the worldwide interconnect, cable-assembly, antenna, cable and sensor market at 'approximately $500 billion in 2025' against its own $23,094.7 million of net sales, and calls the industry 'highly fragmented'. A moat that has to be re-won socket by socket in a fragmented market against named peers of comparable standing is narrow, not wide.

source: sec.gov

Moat type switching costs

The binding force is architecture and configuration. The filing describes "a multi-instance architecture that provides each customer with a dedicated application layer and database," an ITOM product that "maintains a single record of all IT configurable items," and products built to "integrate with existing workflows rather than replace them." Once that record and its integrations are configured, replacement becomes a re-platforming program — our inference, as the filing quantifies no switching cost. Not IP: it holds "over 2,000 issued U.S. and foreign patents" but is not "materially dependent on any single patent." Not network effects.

source: sec.gov

intangibles ip

The moat rests on hard-to-replicate mixed-signal IP: the 10-K describes the custom ASIC platform built on ultra-high-speed SerDes, ARM compute, security, storage, silicon photonics and advanced packaging (die-to-die interconnects, chiplets, CPO, custom HBM), with multiple 5nm designs executed, 3nm in progress and a 2nm platform in development; a secondary switching-cost element comes from multi-year custom design wins co-developed to individual customer specifications. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1835632/000183563226000011/mrvl-20260131.htm

source: sec.gov

switching costs

The filing locates the advantage in the design-in relationship, not in patents or in raw scale. Its stated strategy is to 'expand the scope and number of its preferred supplier relationships with customers across its diverse end markets', achieved by working 'closely with its customers at the design stage'; the payoff named in the R&D section is 'approved vendor status for its customers' new products and programs'. The Customers section describes the resulting stickiness in structural terms — supplier lists are being consolidated to those who clear technical, quality and delivery standards, and 'our relationships with them typically date back many years' — and it says these close relationships 'allow the Company to better anticipate and respond to these customer needs when designing new products'. Amphenol itself disclaims IP dependence and instead 'rel[ies] upon trade secrets, manufacturing know-how, continuing technological innovations and licensing opportunities'. Cost_scale is a genuine reinforcement rather than the primary source: the Company manufactures 'at facilities in approximately 40 countries', states that 'global presence is an important competitive advantage', and 'has established low-cost manufacturing and assembly facilities around the world' — but that footprint serves the design-in relationship (proximity, real-time capability, supply-base consolidation for the customer) rather than standing alone.

source: sec.gov

Leadership clear leader

The call is scoped to IT service management. Apps Run The World's 2024 ITSM ranking (page dated 23 July 2025) places ServiceNow first at 44.4% share, ahead of Atlassian, BMC, GoTo and Ivanti, in an $11.4 billion market where the top ten hold 83.3%. Scale corroborates: about 8,700 customers, 29,187 employees, $13,278 million of revenue, $28.2 billion of RPO. References to "two decades partnering with enterprise customers" and process knowledge "that cannot be readily replicated" are the filing's own characterisation. Outside ITSM it is weaker: one of six Leaders in the 2025 Gartner LCAP quadrant, and tenth of ten in CRM behind Salesforce at 26.1%.

source: sec.gov

co leader

Leader in its optics niche, #2 in custom silicon: ~60% of high-end PAM4 DSP share (36kr, 2026-06-27, https://eu.36kr.com/en/p/3870758441178373) but an estimated 20-25% of custom AI ASIC design services versus Broadcom's ~70% (hashrateindex, 2026-05-13, https://hashrateindex.com/blog/design-partners-ai-asic-market-part-2/) — net, a co-leader in AI data-center connectivity/custom silicon behind Broadcom overall.

source: sec.gov

co leader

The filing claims leadership repeatedly but always in a served market, never across the industry, and always alongside named peers. In IT datacom it is unambiguous — 'Amphenol is a market leader in interconnect development for the information technology and data communications ("IT datacom") market', with 'industry-leading high-speed, power and active and passive fiber optic interconnect technologies, together with superior simulation and testing capability and cost effectiveness'. In defence it is stronger still: 'Amphenol is a world leader in the design, manufacture and supply of high-performance interconnect systems for harsh environment aerospace and defense applications', offering 'an unparalleled product breadth' and 'participating in major programs from the earliest inception across each phase of the production cycle'. Elsewhere the language is the indefinite article — 'a leading supplier' in automotive, 'a leading provider' in commercial aerospace, 'a leading global provider' in communications networks, 'a technology leader' in industrial. At the company level it says only 'one of the world's largest', and its Competition section places Molex and TE Connectivity, among others, on the same field. Roughly $23.1 billion of net sales against an estimated $500 billion market that the filing calls 'highly fragmented' is not a commanding share.

source: sec.gov

Pricing power moderate

The filing discloses no average selling price, no net revenue retention and no pricing data, and the renewal rate is no proxy — it "does not reflect increased or decreased purchases" and excludes "changes in price or users." Revenue up 21%, the $5 million-plus cohort up about 20% annually and RPO up 27% are all consistent with expansion at flat pricing. Margins cut the other way: subscription gross profit fell to 80% from 82% with no stated cause, and professional services gross loss widened to 5% from 2%. One real lever is that "certain AI and data solutions include a consumption-based pricing component."

source: sec.gov

moderate

The 10-K characterizes Marvell's markets as having 'pricing pressures' and intensifying competition (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1835632/000183563226000011/mrvl-20260131.htm), yet the Q1 FY2027 release reports 52.1% GAAP / 58.9% non-GAAP gross margin on record revenue (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1835632/000183563226000014/q127_8kx522026ex-991.htm) — differentiated-IP margins, tempered by hyperscaler buyer power.

source: sec.gov

moderate

Margin evidence is strong but the filing does not attribute it to price. Operating income rose to 25.4% of net sales in 2025 from 20.7% in 2024 and 20.4% in 2023 (adjusted operating margin 26.2% versus 21.7%), and the stated cause is volume and cost discipline: 'strong performance and disciplined cost control, which generated strong operating leverage on the significant growth experienced during the period'. Segment margins moved the same way for the same reason — Communications Solutions to 31.1% from 24.8%, Harsh Environment Solutions to 26.2% from 24.7%, Interconnect and Sensor Systems to 19.5% from 18.4% — each explained by 'strong operating performance on the higher sales volumes'. On the other side, price is one of the five bases the Company says it competes on, customers are consolidating supplier lists partly on 'competitive prices', and the input side is not fully controlled: difficulties obtaining raw materials 'may also negatively impact the pricing of materials and components sourced or used by the Company', with 'inflationary pressures and increased commodity prices' cited as a live cost risk. The ability to hold and expand margin through a demand surge is real; the ability to set price is not asserted anywhere in the document.

source: sec.gov

Summary

ServiceNow sells a workflow platform that sits on top of, rather than replaces, an enterprise's existing systems. Each customer gets a dedicated application layer and database, ITOM maintains a single record of all IT configurable items, and products integrate with existing workflows rather than replace them; once that record and its integrations span IT, HR and customer service, displacement becomes a re-platforming exercise. The evidence is in large commitments: $5 million-plus ACV customers rose from 420 to 502 to 603, and RPO reached $28.2 billion, up 27%, against $13,278 million of FY2025 revenue. The moat is bounded by a market the company itself calls fragmented with low barriers to entry, by larger rivals that can bundle or cut price, and by falling subscription gross margin, 82% to 80%.

Marvell is a fabless data-infrastructure silicon supplier whose center of gravity has shifted decisively to the AI data center: the data center end market was $6,100.3M, 74% of FY2026 revenue, up from 40% two fiscal years earlier (FY2026 10-K). Its strongest position is electro-optics — in high-end PAM4 optical DSPs for 400G+ transceivers it holds roughly 60% share on Inphi-inherited SerDes/FEC IP, with Broadcom above 30%, the two together over 90% (36kr, 2026-06-27). In custom AI silicon it is the structural #2 design partner at an estimated 20-25% of the custom AI ASIC design-services market versus Broadcom's ~70%, anchored by AWS Trainium and Microsoft Maia wins (hashrateindex, 2026-05-13). The Q1 FY2027 release (2026-05-27) shows the flywheel turning — record $2.418B revenue (+28% YoY), Q2 guided to $2.7B mid-point (+35% YoY), management citing 'exceptional AI-related bookings' across 800G/1.6T optics, 51.2T switches, CPO/NPO and custom XPU — and the Celestial AI (Photonic Fabric) and XConn (PCIe/CXL switching) acquisitions closed in February 2026 extend the interconnect moat toward scale-up fabrics. The offsets that keep the moat narrow are in Marvell's own filing: intense competition (AMD, Alchip, Astera, Ayar, Broadcom, Credo, GUC, Lightmatter and others), hyperscaler in-housing risk, and heavy customer concentration.

Amphenol is, in its own words, 'one of the world's largest designers, manufacturers and marketers of electrical, electronic and fiber optic connectors and interconnect systems, antennas, sensors and sensor-based products and coaxial, high-speed, fiber optic and specialty cable', selling into a market it sizes at roughly $500 billion in 2025 through three segments — Communications Solutions (52% of 2025 net sales), Harsh Environment Solutions (26%) and Interconnect and Sensor Systems (22%). The durable part of the business is the design-stage relationship that converts into approved-vendor status on customer programs, held together by manufacturing in approximately 40 countries, roughly 6,400 research, development and engineering employees at the end of 2025, and a deliberately flat structure of 'more than 140 general managers running unique, independent businesses'; diversification is real, with no single customer at 10% or more of net sales in 2025, 2024 or 2023 and about 65% of sales outside the United States. The FY2025 result shows what that position converts into under demand: net sales of $23,094.7 million, up 52% in U.S. dollars and 38% organically, with operating income at 25.4% of net sales against 20.7% in 2024 and 20.4% in 2023 — an expansion the filing attributes to 'strong performance and disciplined cost control, which generated strong operating leverage on the significant growth experienced during the period', not to price. The same filing bounds the story: it competes on price among other factors, names thirteen primary competitors, and is buying growth heavily — approximately $3.8 billion across five acquisitions in 2025, the Andrew (Outdoor Wireless Networks and Distributed Antenna Systems) business closed 31 January 2025, and CommScope's Connectivity and Cable Solutions business closed 9 January 2026 for approximately $10.5 billion, 'the largest acquisition in the Company's history' — with acquired businesses 'currently operating below the average operating margin of the Company'.

Chain position

Enterprise workflow platform layered on top of customers' existing systems of record. It consumes public cloud capacity (named relationships with AWS, Google, Microsoft and NVIDIA) plus its own data centers, and reaches customers through a direct sales force, global system integrators (Accenture, Deloitte, EY, Infosys, KPMG) and resale partners. Microsoft is named as both partner and competitor.

Fabless supplier spanning 'data center core to network edge': it sits between hyperscaler AI compute (custom XPU/XPU-attach ASICs) and the optical layer (PAM4/coherent DSPs, CPO/LPO, DCI, AEC, PCIe retimers), outsourcing fabrication to independent CMOS foundries; the Feb-2026 Celestial AI and XConn acquisitions push it further into scale-up photonic fabric and PCIe/CXL/UALink switching (FY2026 10-K, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1835632/000183563226000011/mrvl-20260131.htm).

Amphenol occupies the physical interconnect layer of the AI build-out, and the filing makes that claim itself rather than leaving it inferred: it is 'a global provider of interconnect solutions to designers, manufacturers and operators of internet and artificial intelligence ("AI")-enabling systems', with products that 'enable a broad array of IT datacom systems and applications, including a growing range of systems to power AI and machine learning'. The exposure is material, not incidental. IT datacom was approximately 36% of 2025 net sales and grew by approximately $4,593.7 million on 'the continued acceleration in and strong demand for products used in next-generation AI-related applications', and backlog rose to approximately $8.9 billion at 31 December 2025 from approximately $6.1 billion a year earlier, an increase the filing says was 'primarily related to strong demand for the Company's products that support AI applications'. The AI pull also drove the segment mix — Communications Solutions net sales grew 71% organically 'with particular strength in AI-related applications'. It is nonetheless a diversified supplier, not an AI pure play: automotive (15%), industrial (19%), communications networks (10%), defense (9%), mobile devices (6%) and commercial aerospace (5%) make up the balance.

Products (share / barrier)
  • Automotive interconnect systems, sensors and antennas Top 3 · Moderate source: sec.gov
  • Base station antennas and distributed antenna systems Top 3 · Moderate source: sec.gov
  • Coaxial, fiber optic, power and specialty cable Unknown · Moderate source: sec.gov
  • Harsh environment interconnect systems for aerospace and defense Leader · Deep source: sec.gov
  • High-speed and fiber optic interconnect for IT datacom Leader · Deep source: sec.gov
  • Sensors and sensor-based systems Challenger · Moderate source: sec.gov
Long-horizon vote +0.20 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral

Editorial prior, not backtested.

see exactly how it voted →

+0.13 at weight 0.20 · swarm bullish

Editorial prior, not backtested.

see exactly how it voted →

+0.13 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral

Editorial prior, not backtested.

see exactly how it voted →