Great Commercial Diligence doesn't just catalog defensive attributes. It stress-tests whether those attributes still create compounding advantage—or whether they've become static, eroding, or substitutable.

Throughout this diagnostic, Voice of Customer (VoC) research is the primary tool for pressure-testing moat claims. Management and banker assertions must be validated through systematic customer and prospect interviews.

The Necessity of Comparative Measurement

VoC questions must be measured on a comparative basis to determine if a genuine moat exists. A moat is not absolute—it exists only in relation to alternatives available to customers. For each test below, Commercial Due Diligence must gather equivalent data points for TargetCo AND its top 2-3 competitors (and any fast-rising competitors), and compare results to establish whether TargetCo has a genuine advantage.

Without comparative measurement, Commercial Due Diligence risks confirming that TargetCo has "good" retention or "strong" brand recognition—while competitors may have equivalent or superior positions. The moat exists only if TargetCo demonstrably outperforms alternatives on the relevant dimension.

---

Test 1: Switching Cost Asymmetry

Can TargetCo expand within existing customers faster than they can switch away?

Switching costs only matter if they're asymmetric. If onboarding takes six months but a competitor can replicate 80% of TargetCo's value in three, the moat is friction, not defensibility.

Salesforce demonstrates genuine switching cost asymmetry. Customers build years of CRM data, custom workflows, integrations with marketing automation, ERP systems, and customer service platforms on Salesforce's architecture. Proof: (1) 90%+ gross retention rates sustained over a decade; (2) Net revenue retention consistently above 120%, meaning existing customers expand faster than they churn; (3) Average customer tenure exceeding 7 years in the enterprise segment; (4) Customers who've churned report 12–18-month replacement cycles with significant productivity loss.

VoC Pressure Tests:

• Ask current customers: "Walk me through what would be involved if you decided to replace [TargetCo]. What would break? What would need reconfiguration?"
• Ask recent defectors: "What was the actual switching cost vs. what you expected? What made the transition easier or harder than anticipated?"
• Ask prospects who chose competitors: "Why didn't you select [TargetCo]? How long did implementation take with your chosen vendor?"
• Ask multi-product customers: "If you use multiple [TargetCo] products, would you consider replacing just one? Or would it be all-or-nothing?"

Comparative Measurement Requirement:

Ask identical questions about TargetCo's top 2-3 competitors. Compare: (1) Reported switching timelines—is TargetCo's longer? (2) What breaks when switching—are TargetCo's dependencies deeper? (3) Defector difficulty ratings—did TargetCo churners report harder transitions than competitor churners? Only if TargetCo demonstrates measurably higher switching friction than alternatives. Does a genuine moat exist?

Signals:

Compounding: Multi-product adoption rising; displacement cycles lengthening; customers building custom workflows on TargetCo's platform.

Decaying: Customers treat TargetCo as modular; competitors offering "bridging" tools; churners/defectors report easier-than-expected transitions.

---

Test 2: Brand Equity vs. Category Maturity

Is TargetCo's brand still earning premium consideration—or has it become table stakes?

Brand equity compounds when it reduces consideration set friction—when customers default to TargetCo before evaluating alternatives. But as categories mature, brands often shift from preference drivers to participation requirements.

HubSpot demonstrates brand equity translating to measurable competitive advantage in the marketing automation and CRM space. Proof: (1) HubSpot commands premium pricing relative to many competitors while maintaining strong growth—average selling price has increased while customer count grows; (2) Inbound marketing methodology created by HubSpot generates significant organic demand, lowering customer acquisition costs; (3) "HubSpot certified" has become a recognized credential in the marketing industry, creating brand extension beyond the product; (4) Brand strength enables land-and-expand motion—customers start with one hub and expand to marketing, sales, service, and CMS hubs over time.

VoC Pressure Tests:

• Ask prospects during selection: "Who else are you evaluating?" If it's always the same three names in approximate equal measure, TargetCo is at parity (rather than preferred).
• Ask customers: "If [TargetCo] raised prices 10%, would you actively shop alternatives or accept it?"
• Ask lost prospects: "How did you perceive [TargetCo] vs. who you ultimately chose? Was brand a factor?"
• Ask channel partners: "When customers ask for recommendations, is [TargetCo] named first? Why or why not?"

Comparative Measurement:

Conduct identical pricing sensitivity and brand perception questions for TargetCo AND competitors. Compare:

(1) Price premium tolerance—will customers accept higher prices from TargetCo vs. competitors?

(2) Unprompted brand mentions—is TargetCo named first more often?

(3) Consideration set position—is TargetCo the default or one of many?

A brand moat exists only if TargetCo demonstrably earns preference and pricing power that competitors cannot match.

Signals:

Compounding: Brand strength translates into pricing power and lowers CAC quarter-over-quarter; inbound demand rising.

Decaying: TargetCo spends more on awareness to maintain share; brand is defensive (preventing churn) but not offensive (driving acquisition); price premium compressing.

---

Test 3: Network Effects vs. Winner-Take-Most Mythology

Is TargetCo seeing increasing returns to scale—or just economies of scale?

We think that network effects are one of the most misrepresented moats in Commercial Due Diligence work product. True network effects make each incremental user more valuable to all existing users. Many so-called "network effects" are simply scale advantages (e.g., supplier density on a platform), which eventually level off rather than grow endlessly. Scale advantages create linear value, while network effect advantages create exponential value. Adding supplier 1,001 rarely increases the value of suppliers 1-1,000 on a platform.

True network effects exist when TargetCo's value to each participant increases non-linearly with scale, like communication networks where each new member increases connection possibilities for everyone.

VoC Pressure Tests:

• Ask long-tenured customers: "Is [TargetCo] more valuable today than when you started three years ago? Why?"
• Ask new customers: "How quickly did you see value? Did you need a critical mass of other users?"
• Ask customers in new geographies: "Does [TargetCo] work as well for you as for customers in mature markets?"
• Ask multi-tenanting (parallel usage) customers: "Do you use [TargetCo] alongside competitors? Does using both reduce the value of either?"

Comparative Measurement:

Compare value-per-user trajectories between TargetCo and competitors at similar scale points. Ask customers of both (TargetCo and competitors):

(1) How does value change as more users join?

(2) Is multi-tenanting (using multiple providers simultaneously) common?

(3) At what scale did value plateau?

A network effect moat exists only if TargetCo's value-per-user increases more steeply with scale than competitors.

Signals:

Compounding: Late-stage users see measurably higher engagement, retention, and referral than early-stage users at similar price points.

Decaying: New markets need same subsidy as early markets; commoditized competitors can match value at 50% penetration; multi-homing increasing.

---

Test 4: Data Moats vs. Data Accumulation

Is TargetCo's data creating proprietary insight—or just operational hygiene?

Data is only a moat if it generates unique predictive or prescriptive value competitors cannot replicate. Most "data moats" are actually data warehouses—useful for internal operations but not defensible.

Understanding Predictive and Prescriptive Value

Predictive value: TargetCo's data allows forecasting outcomes competitors cannot. Example: A logistics company predicts delivery delays 48 hours in advance using proprietary route, weather, and traffic data accumulated over millions of deliveries. Competitors with less data cannot match this foresight.

Prescriptive value: TargetCo's data tells customers what action to take, not just what happened. Example: A manufacturing software platform analyzes machine sensor data across thousands of factories to prescribe specific maintenance schedules reducing downtime by 30%. Recommendation quality depends on cross-customer data patterns competitors lack.

Google's data moat creates genuine competitive advantage. Proof: (1) Google processes 8.5 billion searches daily, generating data on user intent no competitor can match; (2) This data improves search relevance, which attracts more users, which generates more data—a compounding flywheel; (3) Microsoft has invested billions in Bing but cannot close the relevance gap because Google's data advantage compounds; (4) Google's data enables predictive capabilities (autocomplete, featured snippets) that demonstrably improve user experience.

VoC Pressure Tests:

• Ask customers: "What insights or recommendations does [TargetCo] provide that competitors cannot? Can you quantify the value?"
• Ask prospects who chose competitors: "Did [TargetCo] demonstrate any unique data-driven capabilities? Why didn't that sway your decision?"
• Ask customers: "If a new vendor had access to two years of your data, could they match [TargetCo]'s performance?"
• Ask technical buyers: "Is [TargetCo]'s algorithm differentiated, or is it the data volume?"

Comparative Measurement Requirement:

Compare prediction accuracy, recommendation quality, or insight uniqueness between TargetCo and competitors. Ask customers: (1) Can you get equivalent insights elsewhere? (2) How much better is TargetCo's predictive accuracy? (3) How long would it take a competitor to match TargetCo's data capabilities? A data moat exists only if TargetCo's data creates measurably superior outcomes that competitors cannot replicate within a reasonable timeframe.

Signals:

Compounding: Marginal data adds nonlinear value; customers explicitly pay for insights they can't get elsewhere.

Decaying: Data advantage is time-based (not capability-based); new entrants can leapfrog with better instrumentation or third-party integrations.

---

Test 5: Ecosystem Lock-In vs. Integration Theater

Are integrations structural dependencies—or reversible conveniences?

Ecosystem lock-in is real when un-integrating creates workflow collapse—when removing TargetCo requires re-architecting ten other systems. But most integrations are surface-level—valuable but swappable.

Understanding Bilateral vs. Architectural Integrations

Bilateral integrations are one-to-one connections between TargetCo and another system. Example: TargetCo's software connects to Salesforce CRM to sync contact records. If a customer removes TargetCo, they simply reconnect the next vendor using that vendor's similar integration. The integration is valuable but not structurally differentiating—it's a feature, not a moat.

Architectural integrations make TargetCo a foundational layer upon which multiple systems and workflows depend. Example: TargetCo is a payments infrastructure provider sitting between a company's ERP, accounting software, customer portal, inventory system, and banking relationships. Custom workflows, reconciliation logic, and compliance reporting are built on top of TargetCo's API. Removing TargetCo requires rebuilding the entire architecture—dozens of dependencies, not just one connection.

Stripe's ecosystem lock-in exemplifies architectural integration. Proof: (1) Stripe sits between customer websites, mobile apps, accounting systems, fraud detection, subscription management, and banking infrastructure; (2) Customers build custom checkout flows, reconciliation processes, and financial reporting on Stripe's APIs; (3) Switching from Stripe requires rewriting code across multiple applications, recertifying PCI compliance, and rebuilding financial workflows; (4) Stripe's net revenue retention exceeds 100% because customers expand usage rather than switch—despite competitors offering lower transaction fees.

VoC Pressure Tests:

• Ask customers: "Walk me through what happens if you remove [TargetCo]. What breaks? How many other systems need reconfiguration?"
• Ask customers: "Have you built custom workflows, reports, or automations on top of [TargetCo]'s platform?"
• Ask churned customers: "When you left, did you re-integrate elsewhere, or abandon certain workflows entirely?"
• Ask IT/operations leads: "Is [TargetCo] a 'system of record' for any data? Would other systems break if [TargetCo]'s data disappeared?"

Comparative Measurement Requirement:

Count and categorize integration depth for TargetCo vs. competitors. Ask customers of both: (1) How many systems connect to the platform? (2) Are connections bilateral or architectural? (3) What's the estimated cost/time to switch? An ecosystem moat exists only if TargetCo's integration depth measurably exceeds competitors.

Signals:

Compounding: Customers building proprietary workflows on platform; architectural dependencies deepening; multi-system integrations increasing.

Decaying: Integrations are bilateral rather than architectural; competitors offer equivalent plug-ins; API calls declining.

---

Test 6: Cost Advantage (Low-Cost Provider)

Does TargetCo have a structural cost advantage competitors cannot replicate?

Being a low-cost provider is one of the most durable moats when it stems from structural advantages—scale economies, proprietary processes, advantaged input costs, or superior asset utilization. Cost leadership allows TargetCo to either undercut competitors on price (gaining share) or maintain price parity (expanding margins). But not all cost advantages are moats: temporary operational efficiencies or one-time procurement wins erode quickly.

Costco's cost advantage creates genuine competitive moat through a replicable model. Proof: (1) Membership model generates predictable revenue allowing Costco to operate on razor-thin product margins (approximately 11% gross margin vs. 25%+ for traditional retailers); (2) Limited SKU count (approximately 4,000 vs. 30,000+ at typical supermarkets) enables higher volume per item, driving supplier negotiations and inventory efficiency; (3) No-frills warehouse format with minimal labor per square foot reduces operating costs; (4) Structural advantages compound: lower prices drive membership growth, which funds further cost reduction, which enables lower prices. Costco's model has been studied and attempted by competitors, yet few have replicated its cost position because the advantages are structural, not operational.

VoC Pressure Tests:

• Ask customers: "If [TargetCo] and [Competitor] offered identical products, would TargetCo's lower price make you switch? Or are other factors more important?"
• Ask competitors' customers: "Do you perceive [TargetCo] as lower-cost? If yes, why haven't you switched?"
• Ask suppliers and channel partners: "Does [TargetCo] have better pricing with suppliers or more favorable terms than competitors? Why?"
• Analyze internal operations: Does TargetCo's cost advantage stem from scale, process, location, or asset intensity? Only structural sources are defensible

Comparative Measurement Requirement:

Compare cost structures between TargetCo and competitors on: (1) Gross margin; (2) Operating expense ratio; (3) Cost per unit or cost to serve; (4) Supplier terms. A cost moat exists only if TargetCo's cost position is measurably better AND stems from structural advantages competitors cannot quickly replicate.

Signals:

Compounding: Cost advantage widening as TargetCo scales; competitors cannot close gap without comparable volume or proprietary access; margin gap vs. competitors widening.

Decaying: Cost advantage is operational (better management) rather than structural; competitors closing cost gap; new technologies enabling leapfrogging.

---

Test 7: Distribution Advantage

Does TargetCo have superior access to customers through advantaged distribution channels?

Distribution advantage is a powerful moat when TargetCo controls or has privileged access to pathways delivering products to customers. This manifests as exclusive relationships, proprietary channel partnerships, superior salesforce coverage, or owning the "last mile." Distribution moats are especially durable in industries where customer access is concentrated, difficult to replicate, or requires years to build.

Sysco built a formidable distribution moat as the largest foodservice distributor in North America. Proof: (1) Route density: Sysco's trucks deliver to hundreds of thousands of restaurants, hotels, and institutions—competitors need comparable density to match delivery economics, requiring decades and billions in capital; (2) Relationship depth: Sysco's sales reps develop multi-year relationships with chefs and purchasing managers, becoming trusted advisors—these relationships create switching costs independent of product or price; (3) Proprietary infrastructure: Sysco's network of regional distribution centers, refrigerated warehouses, and logistics systems is costly and time-consuming to replicate; (4) Product breadth enabling cross-sell: Sysco delivers everything from produce to cleaning supplies in one truck—competitors offering narrower assortments cannot match convenience.

As Sysco scaled, its distribution advantage compounded: greater density lowered per-delivery costs, enabling better pricing, which attracted more customers, which justified denser routes. Competitors remain structurally disadvantaged.

VoC Pressure Tests:

• Ask customers: "How did you first learn about [TargetCo]? How does [TargetCo] reach you compared to competitors?"
• Ask customers: "Does [TargetCo] make buying easier, faster, or more convenient than alternatives? How?"
• Ask channel partners: "Why do you carry [TargetCo] vs. competitors? Is your relationship exclusive or preferred?"
• Ask prospects: "How hard is it to find and purchase [TargetCo]'s products? How does that compare to competitors?"
• Analyze sales coverage: Does TargetCo have more feet on the street, better territory density, or superior channel penetration?

Comparative Measurement Requirement:

Compare distribution metrics between TargetCo and competitors: (1) Geographic coverage and density; (2) Channel exclusivity or preference; (3) Customer acquisition source (inbound vs. outbound); (4) Cost to serve by channel. A distribution moat exists only if TargetCo's access to customers is measurably superior and structurally difficult to replicate.

Signals:

Compounding: Distribution density, exclusivity, or relationship depth increasing; cost-to-serve declining; barriers for competitors rising.

Decaying: Distribution partnerships are non-exclusive; competitors replicating coverage; new channels (e.g., e-commerce) undermining legacy advantages.

Continue to 044, Part 3: Measuring Moat Strength—A Practitioner's Guide

Copyright © Matters Graph