This part provides a systematic methodology for quantifying moat strength across each of the seven tests. VoC questions are only as valuable as the measurement framework applied to the answers.

The Measurement Imperative

Commercial Due Diligence teams often gather rich qualitative feedback from customer interviews but struggle to translate that feedback into investment-grade analysis. The solution is systematic measurement: converting VoC responses into quantifiable metrics that enable comparative assessment against competitors.

Core Measurement Principles

1. Always measure comparatively. A moat exists only relative to alternatives. For every metric collected on TargetCo, collect the equivalent for top 2-3 competitors.

2. Use consistent scales. When asking qualitative questions, convert to numerical scales (1-10 ratings, time estimates, percentage likelihood) to enable aggregation and comparison.

3. Weight by customer value. Not all customer opinions are equal. Weight responses by customer revenue, strategic importance, or tenure to avoid skewing toward vocal but less valuable customers.

4. Triangulate sources. Validate customer claims against churned customers, prospects who chose competitors, and channel partners. Inconsistencies reveal where moat claims are weakest.

---

Measurement Framework for Each Moat Test

Test 1: Switching Cost Asymmetry—Measurement Guide

Ask customers to rate the difficulty of switching to an alternative (1=trivial, 10=extremely difficult).

Calculate average for TargetCo and each top competitor. TargetCo's moat exists if its score exceeds competitors by 2+ points.

• Estimated replacement timeline (in months): Compare average across TargetCo vs. competitor customers
• Percentage of customers who've evaluated alternatives in past 12 months: Lower = stronger moat
• Net revenue retention: Above 100% indicates expansion exceeds churn—compare to competitor benchmarks

Comparative Benchmark: Interview no less than 30-40 customers of TargetCo AND no less than 30-40 customers of primary competitor asking identical questions. Moat confirmed if TargetCo's switching friction score is statistically higher.

Test 2: Brand Equity—Measurement Guide

Ask customers: "What percentage price increase would cause you to actively evaluate alternatives?" Calculate the average for TargetCo vs. competitors. Higher tolerance = stronger brand moat.

• Unprompted brand recall: Percentage of prospects who name TargetCo first when asked "Who comes to mind in this category?"
• Consideration set position: Percentage of deals where TargetCo is in final 2-3 considered vs. competitors
• Customer acquisition cost (if available): Lower CAC relative to competitors indicates brand-driven inbound demand

Comparative Benchmark: Conduct identical brand perception survey for TargetCo and competitors. Moat confirmed if TargetCo demonstrates measurably higher price tolerance AND higher unprompted recall.

Test 3: Network Effects—Measurement Guide

Ask customers at different tenure lengths: "On a scale of 1-10, how valuable is [TargetCo] to you today?"

Plot average score by tenure cohort. True network effects show increasing scores with longer tenure AND larger network scale.

• Multi-tenanting rate: Percentage of customers using TargetCo alongside a direct competitor. Higher rate = weaker network effects
• New geography/market ramp time: How quickly do new markets reach value parity with mature markets? Faster = weaker network effects (value is not network-dependent)
• Referral rate by cohort: Do longer-tenured users refer more? Increasing referral with tenure suggests network value increasing

Comparative Benchmark: Compare value-per-user curves between TargetCo and competitors. Moat confirmed if TargetCo's curve is steeper (value increases faster with scale/tenure).

Test 4: Data Advantage—Measurement Guide

Ask customers: "Can you get equivalent insights from any other vendor?" (1=identical insights available elsewhere, 10=completely unique to TargetCo).

Calculate average and compare to competitors.

• Prediction accuracy gap: If TargetCo makes predictions, measure accuracy vs. competitors or vs. baseline
• Willingness to pay for insights: Percentage of customers who would pay a premium specifically for TargetCo's data-driven features
• Data replication timeline: Ask technical buyers how long a new entrant would need to match TargetCo's data capabilities

Comparative Benchmark: Moat confirmed if TargetCo's insight uniqueness score exceeds competitors by 2+ points AND customers estimate 3+ years for competitors to replicate data advantage.

Test 5: Ecosystem Lock-In—Measurement Guide

Count number of systems integrated with TargetCo per customer, weighted by integration type:

Bilateral integrations = 1 point; Architectural integrations = 3 points.

Calculate average and compare to competitors.

• Custom workflow count: Number of proprietary workflows, automations, or reports built on TargetCo's platform
• Estimated switching cost (in dollars or person-months): Ask IT/operations leads to quantify
• System of record status: Percentage of customers for whom TargetCo is primary data source for any critical function

Comparative Benchmark: Moat confirmed if TargetCo's integration depth score exceeds competitors by 50%+ AND average switching cost estimate exceeds 6 months of platform spend.

Test 6: Cost Advantage—Measurement Guide

Ask customers and prospects: "How does [TargetCo]'s pricing compare to alternatives?" (1=much more expensive, 5=same, 10=much less expensive).

Calculate average.

• Gross margin comparison: Compare TargetCo's gross margin to competitors (from financial data if available)
• Unit cost or cost-to-serve: If measurable, compare directly
• Source of cost advantage: Categorize as structural (scale, proprietary process, input access) vs. operational (efficiency, management). Only structural sources are durable

Comparative Benchmark: Moat confirmed if TargetCo demonstrates measurably lower cost position AND the advantage stems from structural sources requiring 3+ years and significant capital for competitors to replicate.

Test 7: Distribution Advantage—Measurement Guide

Ask customers: "How easy is it to find and purchase [TargetCo]'s products compared to alternatives?" (1=much harder, 5=same, 10=much easier).

Calculate average.

• Geographic coverage: Percentage of target markets where TargetCo has direct presence vs. competitors
• Channel exclusivity: Percentage of channel partners carrying TargetCo exclusively or preferentially
• Customer acquisition source mix: Percentage of customers acquired through proprietary channels vs. shared channels
• Sales rep density: Number of customer-facing personnel per target account or territory

Comparative Benchmark: Moat confirmed if TargetCo's channel reach score exceeds competitors by 2+ points AND distribution infrastructure would require 3+ years and significant capital for competitors to replicate.

---

Aggregating Moat Measurements into Investment-Grade Analysis

After measuring each moat test comparatively, aggregate findings into a Moat Scorecard:

Moat Test	TargetCo Score	Competitor A	Competitor B	Gap	Status
Switching Costs	7.2	5.1	4.8	+2.1	Compounding
Brand Equity	6.5	6.2	5.9	+0.4	Defending
Network Effects	4.3	6.1	5.5	-1.8	Decaying
Data Advantage	7.8	4.2	4.5	+3.5	Compounding
Ecosystem Lock-In	6.9	5.5	5.1	+1.5	Compounding
Cost Advantage	5.2	5.5	6.8	-0.6	Defending
Distribution	7.1	6.2	5.8	+1.0	Compounding

Interpretation: In this example, TargetCo has 4 compounding moats (switching costs, data, ecosystem, distribution), 2 defending moats (brand, cost), and 1 decaying moat (network effects). This suggests a strong acquisition candidate with genuine competitive advantages, though the network effects weakness warrants investigation.

Continue to 044, Part 4: Moat Dynamics and Investment Decisions

Copyright © Matters Graph