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.
| TE Connectivity | GitLab | Super Micro Computer | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moat rating | narrow The FY2025 10-K's own Competition section undercuts any claim of insulation: 'The industries in which we operate are highly competitive, and we compete with thousands of companies that range from large multinational corporations to local manufacturers', competition is 'generally based on breadth of product offering, product innovation, price, quality, delivery, and service', and TE has 'experienced, and expect[s] to continue to experience, downward pressure on prices'. The same filing explicitly disclaims IP as the basis of its position: 'we do not believe that our competitive position or our operations are dependent upon or would be materially impacted by any single patent or group of related patents.' What TE does hold is durable rather than absolute — it calls itself 'one of the leading providers of advanced automobile connectivity solutions', its Industrial segment 'a leading supplier', and it converted that position into rising profitability across the same filing's three income statements (gross margin 31.5% of net sales in FY2023, 34.4% in FY2024, 35.2% in FY2025). A position that earns expanding margins into admitted price pressure is an advantage; one held against thousands of competitors and no decisive patent is not a wide one. | narrow The FY2026 10-K (year ended 2026-01-31) shows real expansion inside the installed base: 118% Dollar-Based Net Retention, Base Customers up to 10,682 from 9,893, customers above $100,000 of ARR up to 1,456 from 1,229, and $1.0 million ARR customers "to 155 from 123, an increase of 26%". But the filing concedes "limited barriers to entry" and names "Microsoft Corporation, which owns GitHub" as principal competitor. Retention decelerates (130% FY2024, 123% FY2025, 118% FY2026), and since DBNR is reported "on a threshold basis of 130%," the FY2024 figure is a cap and the slide is steeper than it looks. Narrow, not wide: expansion must be re-won against a bundled hyperscaler. | narrow The FY2026 10-K describes a genuine but bounded advantage. On the asset side the filing claims a modular Server Building Block Solutions architecture, over 3,500 R&D employees, in-house design control over many sub-systems, and that Supermicro believes it is 'the only major server, storage, and accelerated compute platform vendor that designs, develops, and manufactures a significant portion of its systems in the United States.' Against that, the same filing calls its market 'highly competitive, rapidly evolving,' concedes that 'most of our competitors have longer operating histories, significantly greater resources, greater name recognition, or deeper market penetration,' reports intensified competition from 'predominantly Asia-based' entrants 'leading to pricing pressure,' and states that pricing pressure has produced 'a continued decline of average selling prices across our business and we expect that these historical trends will continue.' It also disclaims patent dependence outright. A durable-but-shallow advantage in time-to-market and integration, sitting on top of a commoditizing box business, is narrow rather than wide. |
| Moat type | switching costs The FY2025 10-K locates the advantage at the customer, not in patents. It describes 'close working relationships with many of our customers' whose 'relationships with them typically date back many years', and co-development as the mechanism: 'By working with our customers in developing new products and technologies, we believe we can identify and act on trends and leverage knowledge about next-generation technology across our products.' Roughly 75% of fiscal 2025 net sales were direct to manufacturers rather than through distribution, and the Transportation segment's products 'must withstand harsh conditions' — parts engineered in with the customer and built to survive the application, so the position sits inside the customer's design rather than in a purchase order. The filing rules the alternative out in its own words on intellectual property, so intangibles_ip is not the source; the 'thousands of companies' in Competition rules out efficient_scale. | switching costs Stickiness comes from platform embedding, not IP. The 10-K rests differentiation on "our single platform with a unified data model," on "Consolidation of multiple tools into a single platform," and on deployment inside the customer's own perimeter for regulated buyers. Replacement means re-integrating a toolchain and re-certifying compliance. IP is the wrong label: only "16 issued patents and 25 pending patent applications," plus open-source licenses granting "broad permissions to use, copy, modify, and redistribute." The no-lock-in claim is the filing's own characterisation, footnoted to a Forrester study "commissioned by GitLab." | cost scale The filing locates the advantage in design-and-manufacturing scale, not in IP or lock-in. It says the company manufactures the majority of its systems at its San Jose headquarters with assembly, test and QC also in Taiwan, the Netherlands and Malaysia, and that this structure lets it 'reduce time to delivery, mitigate the impact of tariffs and regional costs, and reduce overall manufacturing costs.' Its own list of principal competitive factors includes 'cost-effective design and manufacturing' and 'sufficient manufacturing capacity necessary to support market demand.' Intangibles are explicitly ruled out as the source: 'neither our business as a whole nor any of our principal businesses are materially dependent on a single patent,' with reliance placed 'primarily on trade secrets, technical know-how.' Switching costs are weak by the filing's own account: it 'typically sell[s] products pursuant to purchase orders rather than long-term purchase commitments,' and customers 'have, and others may in the future, cancel or defer purchase orders on short notice without incurring a significant penalty.' |
| Leadership | co leader The FY2025 10-K claims leadership in qualified form and then names the peers who contest it. Transportation Solutions 'is a leader in connectivity and sensor technologies' and TE is 'one of the leading providers of advanced automobile connectivity solutions' — one of, not the — while the segment's 'major competitors include Yazaki, Aptiv, Sumitomo, Sensata, Honeywell, Molex, and Amphenol'. Industrial Solutions 'is a leading supplier of products that connect and distribute power, data, and signals' and 'competes primarily against Amphenol, Hubbell, Carlisle Companies, Integer Holdings, Molex, Omron, JST, and Korea Electric Terminal (KET)'. Amphenol and Molex appear on both lists, so TE shares the top of the interconnect market rather than owning it. | fast follower The 10-K positions GitLab against a leader rather than as one: "Our principal competitor is Microsoft Corporation, which owns GitHub." Competition reads from the challenger side, differentiating "from GitHub through flexible deployment options that work within enterprise security and compliance requirements, LLM neutrality with self-hosted gateway support" and an open core model. On AI it follows: Duo Agent Platform went "Generally available in January 2026," the last month of the fiscal year. What keeps it a follower rather than behind is cadence, "a new version of our software every month for 172 months in a row," plus a regulated-deployment franchise a SaaS-first rival does not cover. | at parity The filing claims no market-share leadership and gives no share figure. It states 'we believe that we compete favorably with respect to most of these factors' while immediately conceding that 'most of our competitors have longer operating histories, significantly greater resources, greater name recognition, or deeper market penetration,' naming Cisco, Dell, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise and Lenovo plus ODMs Foxconn, Quanta Computer and Wiwynn. The one leadership claim it does make is narrow and structural — that it believes it is the only major vendor in its class manufacturing a significant portion of its systems in the United States — plus a stated goal (not an achievement) to 'be the first to market with superior product designs.' Competing favorably against larger, better-penetrated rivals without asserting share leadership is parity, not leadership. |
| Pricing power | moderate The FY2025 10-K states both halves plainly: TE has 'experienced, and expect[s] to continue to experience, downward pressure on prices. However, as a result of increased costs and tariffs, certain of our businesses implemented price increases in recent years.' Pass-through, not price-setting. The realised result is margin expansion rather than erosion — gross margin of 31.5% of net sales in FY2023, 34.4% in FY2024 and 35.2% in FY2025 per the same filing's income statements, and 36.5% ($5,319M on $14,573M) for the nine months to 26 June 2026 versus 35.3% a year earlier, with Q3 FY2026 GAAP operating margin of 19%, per the 22 July 2026 results release (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1385157/000110465926085589/tel-20260722xex99d1.htm). Strong would require pricing that leads rather than follows cost; weak is contradicted by three years of expanding gross margin. | moderate FY2026 gross margin was 87% against 89%, with cost of revenue up $35.6 million "primarily due to an increase of $18.4 million in third party hosting costs for SaaS and cloud usage," and management expects SaaS and Duo mix to bring costs that "may adversely impact our gross margins." Strain is explicit: GitLab "may be required to reduce our prices," competitors "may offer their products and services at a lower price or for free," and it "implemented user limits on our free SaaS product." Power retained: Premium lists at $29 per user/month billed annually, and seats bundle $12 and $24 of GitLab Credits. But "A majority of our subscriptions are on a one-year period." | weak The filing states pricing pressure explicitly and repeatedly. 'Historically, these pricing pressures have led to a continued decline of average selling prices across our business and we expect that these historical trends will continue.' On large orders: 'Large orders are generally subject to intense competition and pricing pressure which can have an adverse impact on our margins and results of operations.' It concedes it has 'accepted customer orders with various types of component pricing protection' which 'increased our exposure to component pricing fluctuations and have adversely affected our financial results in certain quarters,' and that FY2026 industry supply constraints in memory, storage, GPUs and CPUs affected 'the pricing of these items.' Its stated remedy is aspirational rather than realized: it 'must continue to develop more advanced, differentiated products that command a premium.' The filing gives no gross-margin trend in Item 1/1A; margin appears there only as a downside — excess or obsolete inventory 'would reduce our gross margin.' |
| Summary | TE Connectivity sells the connectors, terminals, sensors and cable-protection parts that, in its own framing, 'enable the distribution of power, signal, and data' — a component vendor, never a system or compute vendor. The FY2025 10-K puts the two reportable segments, Transportation Solutions (54% of net sales) and Industrial Solutions (46%), against a combined served market it estimates at roughly $200 billion, which tells you immediately that no single share number governs this business: the filing discloses no market share, says 'no single customer accounted for a significant amount of our net sales in fiscal 2025, 2024, or 2023', and states that because TE is 'not organized by product or service, it is not practicable to disclose net sales by product or service'. The defensible part is entrenchment. Parts get designed in with the customer and then qualified to survive automotive, aerospace, subsea and grid conditions; TE sells about 75% of net sales direct into ~130 countries; relationships 'typically date back many years'. That is a switching-cost moat, and the filing is unusually candid that it is not a patent moat — no single patent or group of patents is material to its competitive position. The limit is equally plain in the filing: highly competitive industries, thousands of competitors, and persistent downward price pressure, with Amphenol and Molex named as competitors in BOTH segments and Yazaki, Aptiv and Sumitomo heading the Transportation segment's competitor list. The evidence that the moat is nonetheless working is margin plus mix. Gross margin ran 31.5% / 34.4% / 35.2% of net sales across FY2023-FY2025, and in the nine months to 26 June 2026 gross margin was $5,319M on $14,573M of net sales (36.5%) against $4,419M on $12,513M (35.3%) a year earlier, while Q3 FY2026 GAAP operating margin was 19% and orders hit a record $5.7 billion, up 27% year over year. Growth has also rotated: digital data networks grew 34.2% in Q3 FY2026 (34.0% organic) and 48.8% over nine months, with the CEO naming 'increased momentum in AI in both the data center and across the broader energy infrastructure' — while sensors, an end market for which the 10-K makes no leadership claim at all, shrank 2.8% organically in the quarter. Narrow, not wide: a real toll on other people's platforms, collected under admitted price pressure. | GitLab sells a single-platform DevSecOps toolchain defended by workflow lock-in rather than intellectual property: a unified data model plus deployment flexibility, including single-tenant "Dedicated for Government with FedRAMP compliance," makes it hard to remove where data residency is contractual. The installed base expands: 118% Dollar-Based Net Retention, 10,682 Base Customers, 1,456 above $100,000 of ARR, 155 above $1.0 million (up 26%), over 70% of ARR from public sector and enterprise. The filing supplies the counterweight: "limited barriers to entry," Microsoft/GitHub as principal competitor, 16 issued patents. Retention (130 to 123 to 118, the 130 a cap), gross margin (89% to 87%) and a January 2026 AI launch point to compression at the commodity end. No source measures market share, so every share band is "unknown". | Supermicro's edge, as its FY2026 10-K frames it, is speed and integration built on a common modular parts bin: it works with NVIDIA, Intel and AMD to 'align the design of our new products with their product release schedules,' then 'quickly assemble a broad portfolio of solutions by leveraging common building blocks across product lines.' During FY2026 it pushed that advantage up a level, growing Data Center Building Block Solutions to 'more than ten key subsystems' — coolant distribution units, heat exchangers, power shelves, switching, management software — and deploying DLC-2 liquid cooling the filing credits with up to 98% per-rack heat capture and up to 40% lower data center power draw. But the filing's competition and risk discussion is candid that this sits inside a price-taking market: ASPs decline structurally, one customer exceeded 10% of net sales in FY2026, and ODMs 'benefit from their scale and very low-cost manufacturing' while increasingly selling their own brands. |
| Chain position | TE is an upstream component supplier to the AI build-out, not a participant in compute. It sells 'connectivity and sensor solutions [that] enable the distribution of power, signal, and data to advance next-generation transportation, energy networks, automated factories, data centers enabling artificial intelligence', about 75% of it direct to manufacturers across roughly 130 countries. AI exposure runs through one end market: digital data networks was 28% of Industrial Solutions, and Industrial Solutions was 46% of fiscal 2025 net sales — so the datacenter line is a minority of a company still 54% transportation. That minority is where the growth now is: digital data networks net sales rose 34.2% in Q3 FY2026 and 48.8% over the nine months, and energy rose 34.4% in the quarter, the CEO tying both to AI momentum 'in both the data center and across the broader energy infrastructure' (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1385157/000110465926085589/tel-20260722xex99d1.htm). | GitLab sits at the software-tooling layer, not compute or models. It consumes third-party LLM capacity — marketing "LLM neutrality and support for self-hosted AI gateways, including air-gapped environments" — so it captures no model-layer economics and bears inference as COGS, visible in the $18.4 million rise in hosting costs. Its distinctive position is the regulated perimeter. | Downstream system integrator: it converts third-party accelerators and CPUs (NVIDIA Blackwell/GB300 NVL72, AMD Instinct MI350, Intel Xeon 6) into validated racks, liquid cooling and full data-center building blocks sold to cloud service providers and enterprises. The AI angle is central, not incidental — the filing devotes a risk factor titled 'The AI industry has driven a significant portion of our recent success' and states 'A portion of the recent success of our server and storage solutions has been dependent on the integration of our products and services within the AI industry.' |
| Products (share / barrier) |
|
|
|
| Long-horizon vote | +0.13 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. | +0.06 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. | -0.01 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. |