Uber

Moat components and durability. Network effects (score 90; weight 40%): Uber’s two‑sided marketplace benefits from density at the city level: shorter ETAs, more liquidity for riders, and higher utilization for drivers. Trip growth of 22% YoY in Q3 2025 and MAPCs growth of 17% indicate strengthening engagement.

Multi‑homing moderates this moat but scale leadership in many markets and cross‑product usage (Mobility, Delivery, Membership) reinforce it. Risk: robotaxi suppliers or OEM fleets could try to disintermediate. Uber’s aggregator approach with 20 autonomy partners and exclusive integrations in select cities helps maintain platform relevance.

Switching costs (score 65; weight 20%): For riders and merchants, switching is low, but Uber One membership and in‑app wallets/benefits raise switching frictions; for merchants, Ads and demand capture create increasing reliance. For drivers/couriers, multi‑homing persists, yet superior demand density and product mix help retention.

Cost advantages (score 75; weight 15%): At scale, Uber spreads fixed platform, payments and safety/compliance costs over massive Gross Bookings, driving rising segment EBITDA (Mobility + Delivery adjusted EBITDA up 21% and 47% YoY respectively in Q3 2025).

Insurance expense is a structural headwind but increasingly managed through pricing and risk analytics. Intangibles/brand (score 70; weight 15%): Global brand, trust, and regulatory know‑how across >70 countries are not easily replicated. Ads and membership enhance consumer mindshare.

Efficient scale (score 80; weight 10%): Urban mobility networks tend toward a few scaled platforms due to liquidity needs and compliance/regulatory overhead; Uber’s global footprint and multi‑modal offering strengthen efficient scale dynamics.

Overall moat: weighted average ≈ 84, with key erosion risks from regulation (EU employment presumption) and autonomy disintermediation mitigated by partnerships. (consilium.europa.eu).