Does Kyndryl Holdings Inc. (KD) have an economic moat?

MoatScan AI rates Kyndryl Holdings Inc. (KD) 40/100 for moat strength, assessed across five sources of competitive advantage: network effects, switching costs, intangible assets, cost advantages and efficient scale. Kyndryl is best understood as a large but not dominant enterprise infrastructure outsourcer inherited from IBM.

What is Kyndryl Holdings Inc.'s moat score?

Kyndryl Holdings Inc. (KD) has a moat score of 40/100. The score is a weighted average of five pillar ratings: network effects, switching costs, intangible assets, cost advantages, and efficient scale. A higher score means the competitive advantages MoatScan AI identifies are wider and more durable.

How does KD's share price compare with its estimated fair value?

MoatScan AI estimates KD's intrinsic value with a discounted cash flow (DCF) model and shows how that estimate compares with the market price at the time of analysis. The estimate updates with each new financial analysis and is a research estimate, not a recommendation.

What is Kyndryl Holdings Inc.'s fair value estimate?

MoatScan AI derives Kyndryl Holdings Inc.'s (KD) fair value per share from a discounted cash flow (DCF) model built on the company's reported financials, analyst growth forecasts, and a discount rate reflecting its cost of capital. The Financial Analysis tab shows the estimate alongside every assumption behind it.

Back to Database

KD$13.08

Kyndryl Holdings Inc.

Last Updated

Nov 2, 202610 days ago

Moat & Trend

Management

AI Impact

Competitive Radar

Moat Score

40/100

Executive Summary

Kyndryl is best understood as a large but not dominant enterprise infrastructure outsourcer inherited from IBM. Its moat rests mainly on switching costs: many customers outsource mission-critical mainframe, network, security, and workplace operations, which creates operational friction and supports long relationships. The company’s global delivery footprint, deep legacy expertise, and recurring contract base are meaningful assets, especially in complex regulated environments. However, it lacks network effects, true proprietary IP, or a durable cost gap; global peers and hyperscalers can compete on price and breadth. Kyndryl’s portfolio optimization, cloud alliances, and advisory push may improve mix, but they do not transform the business into a wide-moat franchise. Overall, the company has a real but limited advantage that merits a Narrow Moat classification.

Network Effects

No Self-Reinforcement

Pillar Strength

1/10

Kyndryl’s services do not become more valuable as more customers use them, so there is little true network effect. Each engagement is typically bespoke, built around a single enterprise’s legacy estate, governance, and service-level needs. While Kyndryl Bridge and its cloud alliances may help standardize delivery and create internal data advantages, those benefits do not compound across customers in the way a two-sided platform would. Enterprises do not choose Kyndryl because peers already use it; they choose it for transition risk management and legacy expertise. Multi-homing is common, and customers can split workloads among several providers without losing access to a broader network.

Switching Costs

Mission-Critical Friction

Pillar Strength

6/10

Switching costs are the strongest part of Kyndryl’s moat, but they are still moderate rather than prohibitive. The company often manages core infrastructure, mainframe environments, security operations, and workplace services for large enterprises, so replacing it requires migration planning, compliance work, retraining, and real downtime risk. Those frictions are especially meaningful in regulated industries and for clients with legacy systems that are hard to unwind. However, contracts eventually come up for rebid, and customers can carve out pieces of the stack or shift work to multiple vendors. That keeps lock-in real but not absolute, and it limits Kyndryl’s ability to command durable premium pricing.

Intangible Assets

Inherited Credibility, Limited IP

Pillar Strength

4/10

Kyndryl benefits from a legacy reputation that traces back to IBM’s infrastructure services, which helps credibility with large enterprises and governments. That brand association matters when selling into sensitive environments where trust, continuity, and operational discipline are essential. The company also has proprietary operating methods and tooling, including Kyndryl Bridge, but those are not legally protected or uniquely hard to replicate. There is no exclusive license, patent moat, or iconic consumer brand. Hyperscalers and global IT services competitors can match most of the visible service proposition with enough investment. The intangible asset base supports sales efforts, but it does not by itself create strong pricing power or enduring differentiation.

Cost Advantages

Scale Helps, But Parity

Pillar Strength

4/10

Kyndryl has some cost advantages from global delivery centers, labor arbitrage, and the ability to spread support functions across a large client base. Its footprint in India and other lower-cost locations helps keep service delivery competitive, and its scale in legacy infrastructure can improve utilization in specialized teams. Still, these advantages are modest because the business is labor intensive and competitors use similar offshore models, automation tools, and managed-service playbooks. A well-capitalized rival can narrow the gap with enough investment. Kyndryl also inherited a complex cost structure after the spin-off, which limits how much of its scale translates into a lasting unit-cost edge versus the broader market.

Efficient Scale

Large, Not Scarce

Pillar Strength

5/10

Kyndryl operates at a scale that matters, but the market is not scarce enough to create a true efficient-scale moat. Large enterprises with complex global estates prefer vendors that can cover many geographies, systems, and compliance regimes, and only a handful of providers have that breadth. Even so, the segment is far from a natural monopoly. IBM, Accenture, DXC, Tata Consultancy Services, Capgemini, and cloud-native rivals all compete for the same budgets, and customers often split the work across multiple providers. The entry barrier is meaningful, but it reflects trust and operational complexity more than economic scarcity. Scale helps Kyndryl compete, but it does not prevent rivalry.

Moat Type & Trend

Why this company earns its moat rating, and where the moat is heading

Moat Type

Narrow Moat

Trend

Stable

Why This Rating

Kyndryl earns a Narrow Moat because mission-critical outsourcing creates real but bounded lock-in: once it runs a client’s mainframe, network, security, and workplace estate, switching means re-platforming, compliance recertification, and operational risk. That friction is durable in large regulated accounts and should still matter in 20 years. But the company does not own a unique platform, irreplaceable brand, or structurally scarce asset. Customers can multi-source, rebid at contract renewal, and compare Kyndryl against IBM, Accenture, DXC, and offshore integrators. Those substitutes keep the advantage real but not deep enough for a Wide Moat.

Why This Trend

The moat looks Stable because Kyndryl continues to renew large enterprise contracts while reshaping its portfolio toward cloud, security, and higher-value modernization, but there is no clear evidence that customer lock-in or pricing power is materially increasing. Partnerships with Microsoft, AWS, and Google Cloud expand relevance, and the Skytap acquisition helps the hybrid-cloud stack, yet the market remains crowded and services remain labor intensive. A Positive trend would require consistent share gains or stronger pricing in strategic services; a Negative trend would show accelerating displacement by hyperscalers and lower-cost peers.

Management Quality Assessment

Evaluating leadership track record, capital allocation, and governance

Verdict

Competent

Martin Schroeter has led Kyndryl since the 2021 IBM spin-off and also serves as chairman, so this is a hired-management team rather than a founder-led model. Execution has been steady, with the company returning capital through buybacks and pursuing small, strategic acquisitions rather than large transformative deals, but the core returns profile remains modest at roughly 5% ROIC. Insider ownership appears low, under 1%, and the direction of change is not clearly constructive. CEO compensation was about $21.8 million in 2026, which looks rich relative to the company’s still-ordinary operating performance. Governance is otherwise cleaner, with a majority-independent board and fully independent key committees.

Key Highlights

Schroeter has run Kyndryl since the 2021 spin-off, giving management a meaningful post-separation track record, but not a long history of compounding capital at the public-company level.
Capital allocation has been relatively disciplined: Kyndryl has used repurchases, including 2.9 million shares bought back for $89 million under a $300 million authorization, while avoiding large dividend commitments.
Recent M&A has been small and strategic, including Skytap and Healthcare IT Leaders, suggesting management is trying to strengthen the services mix without overreaching on deal size.
Insider ownership is low, under 1% of shares, which limits alignment compared with owner-operator peers; the trend is not clearly improving.
CEO pay of roughly $21.8 million appears elevated relative to Kyndryl’s modest ROIC and does not yet look tightly tied to exceptional shareholder compounding.

AI Impact Assessment

Evaluating how AI strengthens or disrupts existing moat pillars

Net Pressure. AI strengthens Kyndryl’s client-retention and cross-sell motion where it is embedded in mission-critical operations: Kyndryl Bridge, agentic AI orchestration, and SAP modernization can deepen workflows, improve uptime, and support higher-value consulting. The evidence points to real operational gains, including AI insights at scale and lower incident rates, but these are primarily productivity and lock-in benefits rather than a new, hard-to-copy moat. The bigger moat pillars are trusted enterprise relationships, operational data, and delivery execution; AI reinforces them only if Kyndryl converts them into repeatable software-like offerings. Near-term uncertainty is whether margin gains from automation outpace fee compression as AI makes monitoring, remediation, and advisory work easier to replicate.

AI Opportunity Highlights

6 / 10

Kyndryl Bridge already generates more than 16 million AI insights per month and is positioned to deepen switching costs by embedding AI into incident prevention and root-cause workflows.
The agentic AI framework can turn multi-step infrastructure operations into repeatable orchestration layers across supply chain, finance, IT, and customer operations.
The SAP Transformations Center of Excellence and Clean Field approach give Kyndryl a packaged AI-enabled modernization offer around ECC to S/4HANA migrations.
AI-assisted service delivery across more than 200,000 customer devices creates proprietary operational telemetry that can improve models and recommendations over time.
Partnership-led deployments such as Toyota Finance show AI can be attached to large transformation deals, supporting upsell into higher-margin consulting and modernization work.

AI Threat Highlights

6 / 10

Routine infrastructure monitoring, incident triage, and root-cause analysis are increasingly automatable, which can compress labor-based service margins.
AI-native observability, AIOps, and managed-service vendors can offer similar orchestration features with less custom labor, lowering barriers to entry.
Large cloud and software providers can bundle agentic workflows into their platforms, making standalone services easier for customers to substitute.
AI-assisted modernization tools may reduce the number of billable engineers needed for SAP and infrastructure transformation projects.
Kyndryl’s moat depends heavily on execution and relationships, so any slowdown in monetizing AI could leave it exposed to pricing pressure in a crowded services market.

Sign in to see the full analysis

The Strategic Factor Breakdown, Management Quality Assessment, and AI Impact Assessment are available to registered users — it's free.

Last Updated

Aug 13, 20263 months ago

Target Price

Analyst Consensus

FAIR VALUE

Financial Strength

Financial Score

55/100

Executive Summary

Kyndryl’s most notable strength is its improving operating profitability, as margin repair has turned operating income from losses into solid positive earnings despite only modest revenue stabilization. That said, the top line remains subdued, with revenue declining from FY2023 and then flattening, while TTM earnings softened and tax and other expense volatility still cloud reported profitability. Cash generation is healthier: operating cash flow has risen meaningfully and free cash flow is now positive, though TTM weakened and elevated capex plus working-capital drag limit consistency. The balance sheet is the clearest pressure point, with working capital now negative, liabilities high relative to assets, and leverage still elevated even as cash remains ample. Overall, Kyndryl presents an improving but uneven financial profile—better margins and cash flow are offset by weak growth, liquidity pressure, and a less comfortable capital structure, consistent with its mid-range ratings.

Income Statement

Revenue · Margins · Profitability

Section Score

6/10

Kyndryl shows a mixed but improving profit profile. Revenue declined from FY2023 to FY2025 and then flattened in FY2026, with TTM slightly below the latest fiscal year, so top-line momentum remains limited. The good news is margin repair: gross margin and operating income improved steadily as operating income moved from a loss to solid profitability. However, earnings quality is uneven. Reported net income swung sharply from a large loss to modest profit, while TTM net income weakened, suggesting some normalization pressure. Other expense and tax volatility also distorted results, especially the elevated tax rate in FY2026. Assuming an IT services model, the margin recovery is encouraging, but weak growth and choppy bottom-line consistency keep the profile only average.

Financials are in millions USD unless otherwise specified

Metric	FY 2023	FY 2024	FY 2025	FY 2026	TTM
Period Ending	Mar 31, 2023	Mar 31, 2024	Mar 31, 2025	Mar 31, 2026	Jun 30, 2026
Revenue	17,026	16,052	15,057	15,092	14,967
Revenue Growth	—	-5.72%	-6.20%	0.23%	-0.83%
Net Income	-1,374	-340	252	198	87
Net Income Growth	—	75.25%	174.12%	-21.43%	-56.06%

Data as of Jun 30, 2026

Balance Sheet

Assets · Liabilities · Equity

Section Score

4.5/10

Kyndryl’s balance sheet shows acceptable but weakening liquidity and a less comfortable capital structure in the latest period. Cash and equivalents remain solid at $2.1 billion, yet total current assets of $5.1 billion now trail total current liabilities of $6.0 billion, leaving working capital at -$911 million versus positive levels in prior years. Total liabilities of $10.9 billion are still very high relative to total assets of $12.0 billion, and equity has drifted down to $1.1 billion from $1.2 billion a year earlier. Debt is manageable but elevated at $4.9 billion, while retained earnings remain negative. PP&E is broadly stable, but the sharp rise in current liabilities is the main red flag.

Financials are in millions USD unless otherwise specified

Metric	FY 2023	FY 2024	FY 2025	FY 2026	Current
Period Ending	Mar 31, 2023	Mar 31, 2024	Mar 31, 2025	Mar 31, 2026	Jun 30, 2026
Total Current Assets	4,963	4,747	4,589	5,528	5,069
Total Assets	11,464	10,590	10,452	12,551	12,026
Total Current Liabilities	4,868	4,589	4,300	6,307	5,980
Total Liabilities	10,002	9,468	9,120	11,259	10,859

Data as of Jun 30, 2026

Cash Flow Statement

Operations · Investing · Financing

Section Score

6/10

Cash generation is positive but not especially smooth. Operating cash flow improved from $454 million in FY2024 to $942 million in FY2025 and $948 million in FY2026, while TTM slipped to $762 million, about 20% below the latest full year. Free cash flow turned positive only recently, rising from -$197 million in FY2024 to $337 million and $340 million in the next two years, but TTM fell to $148 million as capex stayed elevated at $614 million. Working capital remains a persistent drag, with large negative changes each year. Capital allocation was mixed: debt was increased in FY2026, while buybacks accelerated, so overall cash use looks active but not especially conservative.

Financials are in millions USD unless otherwise specified

Metric	FY 2023	FY 2024	FY 2025	FY 2026	TTM
Period Ending	Mar 31, 2023	Mar 31, 2024	Mar 31, 2025	Mar 31, 2026	Jun 30, 2026
Operating Cash Flow	781	454	942	948	762
Operating Cash Flow Growth	—	-41.87%	107.49%	0.64%	-19.62%
Free Cash Flow	-84	-197	337	340	148
Free Cash Flow Growth	—	-134.52%	271.07%	0.89%	-56.47%

Data as of Jun 30, 2026

Key Ratios

Liquidity · Leverage · Efficiency · Returns

Section Score

5.5/10

Liquidity is exceptionally strong on paper, with current and quick ratios still far above 1.0, though both eased from the 2025 peak to 87.6 in TTM, suggesting some weakening in short-term balance sheet cushion. Leverage remains elevated: debt-to-equity moved back up to 4.61 in TTM after improving in FY2025, while long-term debt-to-equity stayed high but has trended lower than earlier periods. Efficiency is mixed, as asset turnover fell from about 1.5x in FY2023–FY2024 to 1.2x in FY2026 and TTM, indicating softer asset productivity. Profitability has improved meaningfully from losses to positive margins and returns, but TTM ROA and net margin weakened versus FY2025, showing the recovery is not fully stable yet.

Ratios are dimensionless unless otherwise noted

Metric	FY 2023	FY 2024	FY 2025	FY 2026	Current
Period Ending	Mar 31, 2023	Mar 31, 2024	Mar 31, 2025	Mar 31, 2026	—
Current Ratio	101.952	103.443	106.721	87.649	87.649
Quick Ratio	101.952	103.443	106.721	87.649	87.649
Profit Margin	-8.07%	-2.12%	1.67%	1.31%	1.31%
After Tax ROE	-100.66%	-33.50%	20.67%	16.85%	16.85%
Return on Assets	-11.99%	-3.21%	2.41%	1.58%	0.72%
Debt to Equity	3.11	4.08	3.25	4.22	4.61
P/E Ratio	—	—	54.14	12.5	36.33
Forward P/E	—	—	15.24	6.16	5.25

Data as of Mar 31, 2026

Growth

Revenue · EPS · Valuation · Estimates

Section Score

5.5/10

Kyndryl’s revenue trend shows a sharp decline from 17.03B USD to 15.06B USD, followed by stabilization and then a slightly softer forward path around 14.8B–14.79B USD. That suggests the business has moved from contraction into a flatter phase rather than a clear growth rebound. EPS has been far more volatile, but the forward estimates point to meaningful earnings expansion, with EPS rising from 1.84952 to 2.48103, implying margin improvement outpacing revenue growth. Analyst sentiment is cautious: the consensus is Hold, and the target range of 13 to 16 USD is fairly tight around the 14.2 USD average. Recommendation trends are stable, with Holds dominating and only one Strong Sell, while five analysts indicate moderate but not high conviction.

Third-party Analyst Price Targets

Low$13-0.61%

Median$14+7.03%

Average$14.2+8.56%

High$16+22.32%

HoldConsensus rating and price targets published by third-party analysts. Not a MoatScan AI view.

5 analysts

Third-party Analyst Recommendation Trends

Rating	May '26	Jun '26	Jul '26	Aug '26
Strong Buy	0	0	0	0
Buy	0	0	0	0
Hold	6	5	5	5
Sell	0	0	0	0
Strong Sell	1	1	1	1
Total	7	6	6	6

Forecast · Analyst Estimates

Revenue This Year14.80B

-1.96%from 15.09B

FY 2027

Revenue Next Year14.79B

-0.05%from 14.80B

FY 2028

EPS This Year· non-GAAP adj.1.85

+26.68%

FY 2027

EPS Next Year· non-GAAP adj.2.48

+34.14%

FY 2028

Historical · Reported Actuals

Metric	FY 2023	FY 2024	FY 2025	FY 2026
Revenue	17.03B	16.05B	15.06B	15.09B
Revenue Growth	—	-5.72%	-6.20%	+0.23%
EPS (GAAP diluted)	-6.06	-1.48	1.05	0.85
EPS Growth	—	+75.58%	+170.95%	-19.05%

Revenue in USD · EPS per share · Price targets in USD

Data as of Mar 31, 2026 · Forecast EPS is analyst non-GAAP adjusted; historical EPS is GAAP diluted — not directly comparable.

Fair Value Estimation

DCF · Model estimate vs. price +84.8% · Price below model estimate

AI Fair Value Estimate (DCF)

$24.17vs$13.08

Model estimate vs. price+84.8%

Price below model estimate

A discounted cash flow framework fits Kyndryl because the business is increasingly defined by recurring, projectable operating cash generation rather than purely cyclical earnings, making long-run cash conversion the right anchor for intrinsic value. The projected rise in free cash flow from $308 million to $418 million alongside modest revenue growth suggests gradual margin expansion, disciplined capital intensity, and a clear fade from early operating leverage into a low-growth terminal profile.

AI Valuation Commentary

A DCF is an appropriate lens for Kyndryl because value here depends on the durability of cash generation, not just near-term accounting earnings. The model assumes a 6.4% discount rate, 0.5% terminal growth, revenue CAGR of 2.72%, and an average EBITDA margin of 7.41%, with capex held at a disciplined 4.24% of revenue. Under those assumptions, fair value is $24.17 per share versus a current price of $13.08, implying an 84.79% margin of safety and an undervalued verdict. The key sensitivities are WACC, terminal growth, and whether margin improvement persists. Stronger margin durability and cash conversion would support upside; weaker execution or higher discount rates would compress value.

DCF Assumptions

WACC

6.4%

Weighted avg cost of capital

Revenue Growth (5Y)

2.7%

CAGR assumption

EBITDA Margin

7.4%

Steady-state projection

CapEx / Revenue

4.2%

Capital investment

Terminal Growth

0.5%

Long-run growth rate

Projection Period

5 yrs

Explicit forecast horizon

Projected Cash Flows

Values in millions USD

Year	Revenue	EBITDA	FCF	Discounted FCF
Yr 1	15,435	1,191	308	289
Yr 2	15,590	1,156	435	384
Yr 3	16,201	1,183	375	311
Yr 4	16,845	1,227	364	284
Yr 5	17,182	1,262	418	307
Terminal Value (PV)				5,221

Key Valuation Ratios

Current vs 5-year average

PE Ratio

36.33x

No history available

Forward PE

5.25x

No history available

P/FCF Ratio

19.50x

No history available

PS Ratio

0.19x

4Y avg 0.29x

-35.6% vs avg

A multiple below its own multi-year average can indicate the stock is cheaper than its recent history — context, not a standalone signal.

Sign in to see the full analysis

The Income Statement, Balance Sheet, Cash Flow, Key Ratios, Forecast, and Fair Value analysis are available to registered users — it's free.

Last Updated

Aug 13, 2026

Short Term

Medium Term

Long Term

Technical Overview

$13.08Price at Analysis

KD’s technical profile is mixed in the near term but decisively weaker on the medium- and long-term horizon. Short-term momentum is not broken outright, as RSI remains in a constructive zone and price is holding near the 20-day MA, but the bearish MACD crossover limits upside conviction. Medium term, the stock is still under the weight of the 200-day MA and Death Cross territory, which keeps rallies suspect even while the 50-day MA offers some near-term support. The most relevant levels to watch are $13.01–$13.15, where weekly pivot confluence sits close to the current price, and $12.59/$12.32 on the downside versus $14.57 on the upside. Longer term, the monthly structure remains capped below the upper pivots and well under the 52-week high, preserving a cautious technical stance.

Short Term

1 to 4 weeks

Sideways

KD’s short-term setup is mixed: RSI at 62.1 remains supportive, but MACD has turned bearish and price is essentially flat versus the 20-day MA. The neutral volume backdrop and mid-band Bollinger positioning suggest consolidation rather than a clean directional move.

Key Indicators

Price vs 20-day MA-0.04% below

Price vs 50-day MA+6.90% above

RSI (14-day)62.1

RSI InterpretationApproaching overbought

MACD TrendCrossover negative

Bollinger PositionMiddle

Volume TrendNeutral

Support

$12.75$12.59$12.32

Resistance

$13.28$13.39$13.71

The closest short-term level is resistance at $13.28, just above the current price, making it the first likely test in the 1–4 week window if buyers can hold $13.02 and $12.75. Below that, $12.59 and $12.32 are the next support layers, with a retest of the lower supports becoming more likely if momentum deteriorates.

Medium Term

1 to 6 months

Downtrend

The medium-term picture is pressured by price sitting below the 200-day MA and in Death Cross territory, even though it remains above the 50-day MA. That combination, plus the sideways range direction and only modest distance above the weekly pivot zone, argues for a cautious-to-negative intermediate trend.

Key Indicators

Price vs 50-day MA+6.90% above

Price vs 200-day MA-24.68% below

52-Week Range PositionLower third (13%)

Trend DirectionSideways

MA Cross SignalDeath Cross territory

Relative Volume0.82x avg

Support

$13.01$12.71$12.00

Resistance

$13.15$14.57$14.87

Weekly pivots place KD near a key decision area, with support at $13.01 and resistance at $13.15 forming a tight band around the current price, while the 50-day MA near this zone adds confluence. Over 1–6 months, a test of $14.57 and $14.87 is possible only if the stock reclaims $13.86 and sustains follow-through above the weekly pivot cluster.

Long Term

6 months and beyond

Downtrend

Longer term, KD remains structurally weak because it is still well below the 200-day MA and positioned in the lower third of its 52-week range. Death Cross territory reinforces the downtrend bias, and the elevated Bollinger Bandwidth suggests volatility is likely to remain a feature of the broader move.

Key Indicators

Price vs 200-day MA-24.68% below

52-Week High$33.90

52-Week Low$10.10

Distance from 52w High-61.4%

BB Bandwidth27.5%

MA CrossoverNone detected

Support

$11.63$10.87$9.64

Resistance

$14.09$14.81$16.08

The monthly structure leaves KD boxed between $11.63, $10.87, and $9.64 on the downside and $14.09, $14.81, and $16.08 on the upside, with $12.86 acting as an important monthly pivot reference. Over 6+ months, the broader range still favors a retest of lower structural levels more than a challenge to the 52-week high at $33.9, unless the stock can rebuild above the upper monthly pivots.

Sign in to see the full analysis

See the full short, medium & long-term indicator breakdowns and support/resistance levels — free for registered users.

Frequently asked questions about Kyndryl Holdings Inc.

Does Kyndryl Holdings Inc. (KD) have an economic moat?: MoatScan AI rates Kyndryl Holdings Inc. (KD) 40/100 for moat strength, assessed across five sources of competitive advantage: network effects, switching costs, intangible assets, cost advantages and efficient scale. Kyndryl is best understood as a large but not dominant enterprise infrastructure outsourcer inherited from IBM.Sign in free to see the Moat Type verdict and the pillar-by-pillar reasoning.
What is Kyndryl Holdings Inc.'s moat score?: Kyndryl Holdings Inc. (KD) has a moat score of 40/100. The score is a weighted average of five pillar ratings: network effects, switching costs, intangible assets, cost advantages, and efficient scale. A higher score means the competitive advantages MoatScan AI identifies are wider and more durable.Sign in free to see each pillar rating, the Moat Type verdict and the moat trend.
How does KD's share price compare with its estimated fair value?: MoatScan AI estimates KD's intrinsic value with a discounted cash flow (DCF) model and shows how that estimate compares with the market price at the time of analysis. The estimate updates with each new financial analysis and is a research estimate, not a recommendation.Sign in free to see the fair value estimate and how it compares with the price.
What is Kyndryl Holdings Inc.'s fair value estimate?: MoatScan AI derives Kyndryl Holdings Inc.'s (KD) fair value per share from a discounted cash flow (DCF) model built on the company's reported financials, analyst growth forecasts, and a discount rate reflecting its cost of capital. The Financial Analysis tab shows the estimate alongside every assumption behind it.Sign in free to see the estimate and the full assumptions behind it.

Disclaimer: The analysis on this page is generated by AI and is provided for informational purposes only. It does not constitute financial advice, investment recommendations, or an offer to buy or sell any security. Always conduct your own due diligence and consult a qualified financial adviser before making any investment decisions. MoatScan AI is an educational research tool. It is not licensed or registered with any financial regulator, and it holds no positions in, and receives no compensation from, any company analysed.

KD$13.08

Sign in to see the full analysis

Sign in to see the full analysis

Sign in to see the full analysis

Frequently asked questions about Kyndryl Holdings Inc.

Other Narrow Moat companies