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.
| Snowflake | Applied Digital | Apple | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moat rating | 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 FY2026 10-K (filed 2026-07-29) shows contracted revenue, not a demonstrated competitive edge. About 1,410 MW is leased under 15-year take-or-pay, non-cancellable base terms worth about $36.2 billion, but only about 100 MW of the roughly 1.5 GW that is contracted and either operating or under construction was operating and earning revenue at May 31, 2026, and Item 1A says "lessees may have the right to terminate applicable leases if there are significant delays in construction." Item 1A also concedes "We do not have the resources to compete with larger providers of similar products or services at this time," and the Competition section names 13 power-advantaged developers the company competes with. Signed leases give revenue visibility, but the filing does not show a durable advantage. | narrow Argued, not assumed. The FY2025 10-K does evidence a real moat in margin: total gross margin percentage rose 44.1% (2023) to 46.2% (2024) to 46.9% (2025) in markets the same filing describes as characterised by 'aggressive price competition, downward pressure on gross margins.' But the filing bounds the claim itself: it concedes 'a minority market share in the global smartphone, personal computer, tablet and wearables markets,' it discloses no retention, active-device or installed-base figure anywhere (its only 'large installed bases of active devices' reference describes competitors), and it discloses that both of the highest-margin layers are already being cut down by force -- Apple is 'currently subject to a court order preventing it from imposing any commission or fee on certain purchases' on the U.S. App Store storefront, has had to open 'alternative methods of distribution for iOS and iPadOS apps, alternative payment processing' in the EU, and warns that a reversal on appeal in the Google search case could impose remedies 'prohibiting Google from offering the Company commercial terms for search distribution.' A moat that earns 46.9% gross margin but whose most profitable layer is being narrowed by two courts and a regulator is narrow, not wide. |
| Moat type | 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 claims three advantages: power-advantaged sites (it believes securing power and interconnection ahead of demand is 'the principal constraint on new HPC capacity and a core differentiator for us from many of our competitors'), a standardized 'franchise-style' design, and hyperscaler master service and master telecom service agreements 'that are difficult to obtain.' The filing does not show any of them to be durable. Its Competition section says competition 'centers on securing and developing sites with access to large-scale, reliable, and cost-competitive power and interconnection' and names 13 power-advantaged developers going after the same leases, and Item 1A concedes it lacks the resources to compete with larger providers. Signed leases are take-or-pay and non-cancellable, so a tenant leaving for convenience owes 'the full remaining contractual value,' but that is contractual lock-in on each lease rather than a moat source, so no moat type is assigned. | switching costs The 10-K locates the durable advantage in an integrated stack and its third-party ecosystem, not in patents: it names 'a strong third-party software and accessories ecosystem' among the principal competitive factors and states the Company 'designs and develops nearly the entire solution for its products, including the hardware, operating system, numerous software applications and related services,' while explicitly disclaiming IP as the source -- 'No single intellectual property right is solely responsible for protecting the Company's products and services' and the Company 'relies primarily on the innovative skills, technical competence and marketing abilities of its personnel.' The remedies now in force confirm the diagnosis negatively: the same filing describes being required to permit alternative distribution and alternative payment processing in the EU and being barred from charging commission on certain linked-out purchases in the U.S. -- remedies aimed squarely at lowering the cost of leaving Apple's rails, which is what a switching-cost moat is. |
| Leadership | 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. | behind The 10-K makes no leadership claim and gives no ranking or share figure. Item 1A concedes "We do not have the resources to compete with larger providers of similar products or services at this time" and that some rivals have "substantially greater liquidity and financial resources than we do." Its Competition section places APLD against established operators (Digital Realty, Equinix), hyperscalers that build their own capacity, independent developers and 13 named power-advantaged developers (IREN, Cipher Digital, TeraWulf, Hut 8, Riot, CleanSpark, HIVE, Core Scientific, Bitdeer, Galaxy Digital, Fermi, Keel Infrastructure, MARA). | fast follower Apple leads on integration and margin rather than on units, and the filing says so: it 'has a minority market share in the global smartphone, personal computer, tablet and wearables markets,' while competitors have 'broad product lines, low-priced products, large installed bases of active devices, and large customer bases.' On the AI axis that defines this graph, Apple is following rather than leading -- it now licenses a rival's frontier models to power Siri (see the Apple Intelligence / Siri row and its citation) while pushing its own advantage down into silicon. |
| Pricing power | 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 Item 1A says "Due to the limited number of hyperscalers, we expect that a limited number of customers will continue to account for a high percentage of our revenue for the foreseeable future," and that if customers' equipment usage declines or they discontinue use of its facilities, APLD "may be compelled to lower our lease prices in some instances or risk losing a significant customer." One customer was 59% of FY2026 revenue from continuing operations. Take-or-pay, non-cancellable terms protect contracted revenue over the base term, and Note 19 reports a $39.1M HPC Hosting segment profit on $385.3M of segment revenue in FY2026, but those terms are agreed with a small group of concentrated buyers. | strong The 10-K's own gross-margin table: total gross margin percentage 44.1% (2023) to 46.2% (2024) to 46.9% (2025), with Services at 75.4% versus Products at 36.8%, and iPhone net sales rising 'due to higher net sales of Pro models' -- mix moving up, not down. Held against the filing's own hedge that 'gross margins will be subject to volatility and downward pressure,' the realised trend is the stronger evidence. |
| Summary | 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.' | Applied Digital designs, builds and operates purpose-built, liquid-cooled HPC data centers, which it calls 'AI factories', and leases the capacity to CoreWeave and investment-grade hyperscalers. At May 31, 2026 its 10-K lists five campuses (Polaris Forge 1-3 and Delta Forge 1-2) with about 1,410 MW contracted under roughly 15-year take-or-pay, non-cancellable leases worth about $36.2 billion over the base terms. The filing claims three sources of advantage: it controls power-advantaged sites, it uses a standardized 'franchise-style' design built to deliver about 150 MW in about 14 to 18 months, and it holds hyperscaler master agreements that are 'difficult to obtain.' The same document shows how early the company is. About 100 MW was operating and earning revenue. One customer was 59% of FY2026 revenue from continuing operations. It competes with Digital Realty, Equinix, hyperscalers that build their own capacity and 13 named power-advantaged developers, and it concedes that it lacks the resources to compete with larger providers. Signed leases give long-dated revenue visibility, but the filing does not show a durable competitive advantage. | Apple's moat is usually asserted through the ecosystem; the FY2025 10-K neither quantifies nor claims retention, so the evidence has to be read elsewhere in the filing. Where it does show is mix and margin: Services reached $109.2B of $416.2B net sales (+14%) at a 75.4% gross margin against 36.8% on Products, so 26% of revenue delivered $82.3B of the $195.2B total gross margin, and iPhone grew 'due to higher net sales of Pro models.' That profit concentration is also the vulnerability the filing itself flags: Apple 'earns revenue from licensing arrangements with Google LLC and other companies to offer their search services on the Company's platforms,' arrangements 'currently subject to government investigations and legal proceedings' after Google was found to have violated U.S. antitrust laws on August 5, 2024 and the D.C. District Court ordered remedies on September 2, 2025 -- with the 10-K warning that a reversal on appeal could impose DOJ's proposed remedies 'prohibiting Google from offering the Company commercial terms for search distribution,' which 'could materially adversely affect the Company's ability to earn revenue from such licensing arrangements.' Apple never discloses the size of that payment in the filing -- the concentration is admitted but not measured. Alongside it, the App Store toll has already been reduced in both jurisdictions. What is not in dispute is the vertical integration: Apple designs the silicon and now the cellular modem, and uses 'custom components available from only one source.' Read together: a genuine, margin-visible switching-cost moat around an integrated stack, with its two most profitable layers under active legal reduction. |
| Chain position | 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. | Developer and landlord of power-advantaged, liquid-cooled AI data-center capacity, leased long-term to CoreWeave and investment-grade hyperscalers. | Applications-layer name in the AI chain: the 10-K describes designing 'nearly the entire solution' and using custom components 'available from only one source,' making Apple a large, concentrated buyer of leading-edge silicon rather than a supplier of AI compute to anyone else. |
| Products (share / barrier) |
|
|
|
| Long-horizon vote | +0.13 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. | -0.20 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. | +0.11 at weight 0.20 · swarm bullish Editorial prior, not backtested. |