Rockwell Automation (ROK) Economic Moat Analysis—

Moat—

Insufficient evidence for every rubric criterion; no category score is inferred.

structural advantage · — · The installed base, partner ecosystem and hardware/software/service portfolio identify plausible foundations for differentiation. However, these are descriptive issuer disclosures without demonstrated customer switching friction, relative costs or competitive exclusion. They cannot establish the strength of a structural advantage; uncertainty should not be scored as competitive weakness.

durability · — · The catalog does not show how long customer relationships endure, whether technology transitions preserve Rockwell's position, or whether rivals can economically displace its installed systems. Pricing contributions across operating periods demonstrate commercial activity but do not establish the duration of an underlying competitive barrier.

customer dependency · — · Control products and recurring cybersecurity, monitoring and asset-management services can be important to operations. The passages nevertheless lack evidence of customer-specific dependence, replacement disruption, retraining costs or mandatory continued purchases. Product importance and recurring service categories alone cannot establish dependence on Rockwell.

erosion resilience · 2/4 · Operating evidence is mixed: fiscal 2025 earnings benefited from productivity and pricing, and nine-month June 2026 margins improved. June-quarter input costs exceeded pricing, while Lifecycle Services organic sales contracted. This assesses observed commercial resilience indirectly; it neither establishes market-share losses nor proves that a structural barrier resisted erosion.

Pricing power—

Insufficient evidence for every rubric criterion; no category score is inferred.

realized pricing · 2/4 · Fiscal 2024 results identify price realization exceeding input costs, and fiscal 2025 segment earnings benefited from sales driven by pricing. These demonstrate realized commercial discretion. June 2026 quarterly input costs exceeded price realization, limiting evidence of consistently effective cost recovery. The passages do not quantify Rockwell's separate price, volume and mix contributions.

retention · 1/4 · Recurring-service offerings provide limited evidence of repeat activity. Aggregate service sales were $245 million versus $247 million for the June quarter and $719 million versus $725 million for nine months. This is indirect evidence only: sales do not identify renewals, and Lifecycle Services organic contraction weakens confidence without proving churn.

margin resilience · 2/4 · Fiscal 2024 earnings fell despite favorable price-cost effects, followed by fiscal 2025 improvement from productivity, pricing and mix. June 2026 margins improved despite quarterly price-cost pressure, supported by volume, mix and Sensia dissolution. Resilience is demonstrated but mixed and cannot be attributed to pricing alone.

contractual freedom · — · Actual price realization shows some practical pricing discretion, but the supplied Rockwell passages do not disclose repricing rights, contract duration, escalation clauses, cancellation terms or negotiated restrictions. Generic pricing-pressure risks cannot establish contractual freedom. Competitor contract disclosures cannot fill this issuer-specific gap.

Predictability89

5 consecutive published annual periods. Equal weights: nondeclining revenue frequency; revenue-growth volatility (5–40pp); positive FCF frequency; FCF-margin volatility (3–20pp). Stability indicator, not a growth forecast.

Nondeclining revenue years (%)

75.00

Revenue growth volatility (pp)

9.72

Positive FCF years (%)

100.00

FCF margin volatility (pp)

3.63

observedAnnualPeriods

5.00

Financial strength67

Equal-weight grades: debt/FCF (1–8x), net debt/earnings before interest and tax (0–5x), interest service (1–12x), current ratio (0.75–2x). Earnings use reported operating income, an original issuer-reported unadjusted EBIT reconciled to net income, income tax and signed net interest, or reported pretax profit plus reported gross interest expense. Reported EBIT is distinct from GAAP operating income and gross interest. Interest service uses earnings/interest expense; if unavailable, it uses reported operating cash flow/cash interest paid, without relabeling cash paid as accrued expense. Nonpositive cash flow/earnings score 0 for their service component; reported zero interest with a positive numerator scores 100. Net cash scores 100 for net leverage. Missing disclosures remain unavailable. General nonfinancial-company rubric, not a credit rating; exceptional and nonoperating gains are not normalized out. IFRS finance-cost and cash-flow classifications retain their reported scope.

debtFcfGrade

80.37

netDebtEbitGrade

67.63

interestCoverageGrade

90.15

currentRatioGrade

30.82

Debt / FCF (x)

2.37

Net debt / operating income (x)

1.62

Interest coverage (x)

10.92

Current ratio (x)

1.14

Capital allocation100

Three-year equal-weight indicators: pretax return on average invested capital (0–25%; equity + debt − cash, each year and its prior year), share-count growth (0–5%, lower better), share-based cost/revenue (2–20%, lower better), consolidated FCF/net income (0–1x). Return uses reported operating income, an original issuer-reported unadjusted EBIT reconciled to net income, income tax and signed net interest, or EBIT calculated from reported pretax profit plus reported gross interest expense; the issuer-reported EBIT is distinct from GAAP operating income and gross interest; exceptional/nonoperating gains are not normalized out. Share-based cost uses the reported cash-flow add-back or, if absent, separately reported recognized compensation expense; the latter never becomes an FCF adjustment. Nonpositive net income scores 0 for cash conversion; absent income/FCF stays unavailable. ROIC remains undefined for nonpositive invested capital; the explicit asset-return alternative does not change the ROIC chart. Missing financial inputs alone never trigger an alternative. Does not establish acquisition quality or buyback timing.

3-year pre-tax operating return (%)

27.77

3-year average dilution (%)

-0.93

3-year average SBC / revenue (%)

1.07

cashConversionGrade

100.00

Management63

Equal-weight average of four evidence-backed rubric grades (0–4), scaled to 100.

capital discipline · 2/4 · Productivity contributed to fiscal 2025 earnings improvement, and management maintained a five-year $1.5 billion revolving facility. Actual June-quarter repurchases totaled 345,421 shares at an average $420.17 including commissions. Sensia's failed expectations offset these actions. Acquisition returns, repurchase value creation and comprehensive cash allocation are not established.

incentive alignment · 3/4 · Actual three-year TSR at the comparator group's 35th percentile resulted in 70% of target performance shares being earned, demonstrating payout sensitivity. All NEOs met ownership requirements at September 30, 2025; disclosed anti-hedging and recoupment safeguards reinforce alignment. February 2026 plan approval establishes adoption, without proving future award outcomes.

execution · 2/4 · Fiscal 2025 earnings improvement and nine-month June 2026 productivity contributions demonstrate execution through aggregate operating evidence. Sensia's historical failure to meet expectations, continuing Lifecycle Services organic contraction and June-quarter adverse price-cost effects temper that progress. The supplied record supports a mixed assessment, rather than consistently strong delivery across the portfolio.

governance · 3/4 · The December 2025 proxy discloses fully independent committees, a lead independent director, management-free sessions, evaluations, recoupment safeguards and shareholder rights. These support strong governance structures, without proving exceptional oversight outcomes. April 2026 board changes prevent carrying the earlier 10-of-11 independence ratio forward as a verified current composition.