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.
| Teradyne | ServiceNow | AppLovin | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moat rating | narrow Real but bounded: the FY2025 10-K reports gross profit at 58.2% of total revenues, a level it records as a decrease - 'Gross profit as a percent of total revenues decreased by 0.3 points, primarily due to product mix' from 58.5% in 2024 - while a shared IG-XL test-program environment spans the FLEX and J750 families. Against that, the filing's own risk-factor heading is 'We are subject to intense competition' and it concedes that 'Some of our competitors have introduced or announced new products with certain performance characteristics that may be considered equal or superior to those we currently offer,' adding that it faces competition 'from emerging Asian companies and internal development at several of our customers.' | 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. | narrow The filing's own words support a narrow moat. Auctions run 'at vast scale and at microsecond-level speeds,' revenue is earned only 'when our advertisers achieve their return on advertising spend targets,' and FY2025 adjusted EBITDA margin was 82.3%. What limits the width: clients 'are not required to enter into long-term agreements' and 'Substantially all of the Company's contracts with customers are cancelable at any time'; the solutions 'primarily operate in the mobile app ecosystem and specifically mobile gaming'; and distribution runs through 'the Apple App Store, the Google Play Store, and Meta' while AppLovin relies 'in part on IDFA.' |
| Moat type | switching costs The 10-K's Products section grounds the stickiness in test-program and capital reuse rather than in protected IP: the FLEX Test Platform runs 'The IG-XL™ software operating system which provides fast program development, including instant conversion from single to multi-site test', the J750 'shares the IG-XL software environment with the family of FLEX Test Platform systems,' and its instruments are 'coupled with a universal slot test head design that allows easy test system reconfiguration to address changing test needs.' The filing credits that versatility with making FLEX 'a widely used test solution at OSATs... allowing OSATs to leverage their capital investments.' The same 10-K expressly disclaims an IP-based moat: 'We do not believe that any single piece of intellectual property or proprietary rights is essential to our business.' | 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. | network effects Network effects, with a caveat. The 10-K states the loop: as more advertisers use the solutions 'we gain access to more data regarding users and user engagement,' 'further strengthening our scaled distribution,' and 'As our distribution grows, we gain better insights for Axon AI.' The mechanism is two-sided matching of advertiser demand to publisher supply, though much of the force comes from data-and-learning scale. It is not switching costs, since contracts are 'cancelable at any time,' nor intangibles or IP, since 'there can be no assurance that we will adequately protect our intellectual property or that it will provide any competitive advantage.' |
| Leadership | co leader The 10-K opens by calling Teradyne 'a leading global provider of automated test equipment and robotics solutions' - a leading provider, not the leader - and its Competition section names Semiconductor Test rivals non-exhaustively: competitors 'include, among others, Advantest Corporation, SPEA S.p.A., and Cohu, Inc.' It discloses no share figure and warns that competitors' announced products 'may be considered equal or superior to those we currently offer,' which reads as shared leadership rather than a clear lead. | 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%. | at parity The filing discloses no share of any market, names 'Meta, Google, Amazon, and Unity Software' as competitors, and concedes rivals 'may have greater resources' and 'better technological or data analytics capabilities, or stronger brands or competitive positions in certain product segments.' Its one positional statement is parity language: 'We believe we compete favorably with respect to these factors.' Two unquantified points cut upward: Meta and Google are also clients, and MAX is called 'the preferred in-app bidding solution for many publishers worldwide.' |
| Pricing power | moderate Gross profit was 58.2% of total revenues in 2025 against 58.5% in 2024, and the 10-K attributes the 0.3-point decline to product mix; product gross margin fell 0.8 points to 57.3%. The risk factor 'Our operating results are likely to fluctuate significantly' lists 'competitive pressures on selling prices' among factors that 'could impact future operations,' and the same list cites the tendency of customers to 'wait until late in a quarter to commit to purchase... or the hope of obtaining more favorable pricing from a competitor seeking the business' - margin is defended, not expanded. | 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." | strong Strong, with the mechanism shown. The 10-K states that 'Advertisers are charged dynamically based on their campaign goals , rather than a simple fixed price per impression or per action.' Growth composition is the evidence: FY2025 revenue +70% with 'the volume of installations increased 3% and net revenue per installation increased 72%'; H1 2026 +56% with per-installation revenue +75% against 'a decrease in the volume of installations of 10%.' Adjusted EBITDA margin was 82.3% in FY2025 and 84.2% in H1 2026, though payment is performance-contingent and contracts cancel at will. |
| Summary | Teradyne sells the test step that sits between fabrication and shipment, and its hold on customers comes from platform continuity rather than patents. The FY2025 10-K describes one IG-XL software environment shared across the FLEX and J750 test families and a universal slot test head that lets a customer reconfigure a system to address changing test needs, which the filing credits with making FLEX widely used at OSATs because it lets them leverage their capital investments. The margin that continuity sits on is high but not rising: gross profit was 58.2% of revenue in 2025, which the filing records as a 0.3-point decrease from 2024 on product mix, with product margin down 0.8 points to 57.3% and service margin up 2.9 points to 62.9% - and the filing attributes that service gain to the May 2024 sale of the DIS business, not to the platform. It is a narrow moat, not a wide one: the filing names Advantest, SPEA and Cohu 'among others' in Semiconductor Test, warns of internal development at several customers, states that rival products may be 'equal or superior,' and discloses that the five largest direct customers rose to 44% of consolidated revenue in 2025 from 36% in 2024 - buyer power that caps how much of the platform advantage converts to price. | 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%. | One reportable segment: an AI-priced auction matching advertiser demand to publisher supply, where 'Revenue from Axon Ads Manager comprises substantially all of our revenue.' The filed flywheel is real - more advertiser spend yields more user-engagement data, 'further strengthening our scaled distribution,' which feeds Axon AI - and it converts: FY2025 revenue $5.48B, up 70%, at an 82.3% adjusted EBITDA margin, carried by price (net revenue per installation +72%) not volume (installations +3%). What the filing does not evidence is a lock. Contracts are cancelable at any time, revenue concentrates in mobile gaming, and the distribution and identifier layers belong to Apple, Google and Meta - two of whom are simultaneously named competitors and disclosed clients. Wide margins with no disclosed structural lock is narrow. |
| Chain position | Back-end capital equipment: its testers sit between fabrication and shipment, and the 10-K states that AI related customer demand drove the majority of revenue in the second half of 2025, with Semiconductor Test at 79% of consolidated revenue. | 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. | Demand-side AI ad platform: it monetizes third-party mobile-game publishers' inventory and sells outcomes to advertisers, so it sits downstream of Apple/Google app distribution and Apple's IDFA identifier layer and upstream of publisher monetization. Meta and Google are simultaneously named competitors and disclosed clients. Single reportable segment after the June 2025 Apps divestiture. |
| Products (share / barrier) |
|
|
|
| Long-horizon vote | +0.13 at weight 0.20 · swarm bullish Editorial prior, not backtested. | +0.20 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. | +0.11 at weight 0.20 · swarm neutral Editorial prior, not backtested. |