UberUBER
Moat score
A two-sided network that reached liquidity city by city, now facing the question of what happens when the driver is a robot.
MOATE3.1Deep
3.1 Deep
| Dimension | MOATE | Community |
|---|---|---|
| Switching costsweight 15Riders and drivers multi-home freely; the app switch costs nothing. | 3 | — |
| Network effectsweight 15Liquidity is local and strong: more riders bring more drivers, which shortens waits and brings more riders. | 8 | — |
| Scale & cost advantageweight 12Global density that a new entrant would need years and billions to replicate. | 8 | — |
| Brand & pricing powerweight 12The verb for ride-hailing; Uber One adds modest pricing power. | 7 | — |
| Cornered resourceweight 12Driver supply, city-level demand data, and hard-won operating licenses. | 6 | — |
| Distribution controlweight 12A default on most phones for the category; owns the rider relationship. | 7 | — |
| Disruption resilienceweight 12Robotaxis could remove the driver network; Uber’s counter is to aggregate autonomous fleets. | 5 | — |
| Independenceweight 10Regulated city by city, gig-labor law everywhere, and app-store dependence. | 5 | — |
Score it yourself
How strong is Uber's moat?
Question 1 of 8
Saved.