Start with the scope of the reading
The Moat Index is MoatDefender's evidence-based opinion about competitive defensibility, expressed through a versioned, proprietary method. Today's live base is v5.0 on the 7 Powers, with AI-era tests. It does not rank every company in the world, forecast a founder's success or calculate what a business is worth. The methodology page is the starting point for understanding both the number and its limits.
A review asks which customer benefit exists, what prevents rivals from matching it and what evidence supports that explanation. The answer can be uneven: a company might have a strong resource position and a weak switching claim. Keeping the component judgments visible helps a founder identify the claim most worth testing. It also lets an investor or acquirer investigate the evidence without treating an overall label as due diligence.
The words rank, improve and protect describe related jobs. Ranking compares supported strengths under a defined method; improvement changes the underlying business or the evidence available; protection connects a claimed barrier to the arrangements that maintain it. They are not promises of better results from purchasing a service. A useful reading must remain open to a lower assessment when new evidence weakens the original claim.
What today's number rests on
The current method looks at each Power from both sides: the benefit the advantage earns, and the barrier that stops a rival copying it. It also asks whether specific supporting facts are present, and whether the advantage would survive the AI era. A compelling benefit cannot compensate automatically for an absent barrier, and a strong story cannot substitute for supporting facts.
How those judgments become one number is proprietary. The methodology page describes what the reading means, the kinds of evidence that count most, the bands, and the range and confidence shown with every number. The range shows how far a reading could move on the same evidence; it is not a measured statistical confidence interval. Design choices like these still require validation against outcomes.
Each new rating also gets an independent quality check. When it disagrees, confidence drops and the rating is flagged for review without changing the number. If the check is unavailable, that limitation should be visible. Agreement between checks does not establish factual truth. A reviewer still needs to inspect the original evidence, the recorded method version and the conditions behind the reading.
How a founder improves the reading
Start with the weakest consequential link in the explanation. If the claim is customer dependence, obtain evidence about actual migration work. If it is learning, evaluate what improves with additional experience. If it is controlled access, inspect the instrument and its conditions. These are examples of proof work, not guaranteed recipes for points. The outcome can strengthen, weaken or leave the original assessment unchanged.
The same evidence under the same method version returns the stored reading; changed evidence can produce a new one, and a new method version is separately labelled. This preserves the difference between improving an advantage and rerolling a judgment. Retain the earlier record so that a reviewer can see what changed. The next submission should explain the new fact and its relevance rather than merely rewriting the pitch.
A sensible improvement plan records a claim, an action, a proof requirement and a review date. Choose actions for their business usefulness and feasibility, then test whether they alter the barrier. Do not optimise for a number in isolation. Strong documentation around an unimportant feature may be less useful than resolving whether customers depend on the product's central outcome. Better evidence should improve decisions even when the reading stays the same.
How protection connects to the moat
Protection begins by identifying what the company needs to preserve: confidential know-how, access rights, a name, an operating record or another specific asset. Different assets need different instruments and operating practices. A company should examine who owns the asset, who may use it, what obligations attach to it and when those arrangements expire. Qualified counsel should assess legal rights and applicable duties.
A generated plan, a badge or a stored reading does not create intellectual-property rights or establish legal compliance. Likewise, recording that evidence existed does not establish that it was correct. The value of a protection review comes from identifying practical gaps and connecting them to responsible owners. A missing assignment or an unsupported exclusivity claim needs an appropriate investigation, rather than a stronger phrase in the report.
Our roadmap includes expanded protection plans, trusted timestamped evidence deeds and erosion watch; these features are coming. Do not interpret this article as a claim of active continuous monitoring or independent legal verification. Use the capabilities and status actually shown in the product, and keep the broader roadmap distinct from evidence of what a company has already protected.
Where global ranking and membership fit
The Global Moat Defender Index is coming. Its proposed company comparisons use opted-in readings within relevant cohorts, with evidence thresholds and method-version controls. That is different from comparing raw numbers across unrelated sectors and stages. The proposed moat-type view also depends on research provenance and a graph that is coming. Neither surface should be mistaken for an already validated universal ranking.
Original Minds is a membership for builders, investors and supporters, including acquirers, by application and reviewed by the team. The decided price is USD 1 per month + VAT, per person, with tokens purchased separately. A personal lifelong member ID, a Builder Club or Investor Club badge and active or lapsed status belong to that membership. They are not proof of a shipped payment checkout, superior defensibility or a promised commercial outcome.
Original Mind Score and Moat meets thesis are also coming. A personal score, a membership credential and a company Moat Index reading answer different questions and should remain distinguishable. For today's assessment, inspect the current methodology and illustrative example, add specific evidence and identify what would change the judgment. MoatDefender does not predict funding, returns or valuations, and a defensibility reading is not investment advice.
Sources
Sources support the linked claims; our interpretation and checklists establish no outcome for your company.