How does it compare?
The Santa Cruz Bronson has 10mm less travel than the Moon on the back end, but the geometry numbers are really darn close to each other, and both bikes have a similar intended use and feel on the trail, especially while descending.
The Moon, like the Bronson, is a capable climber. It's a little more "loungy", and you do sink into the travel a touch more than on the Bronson, but there's a similar feeling of efficiency. Both bikes are forgiving and supple in chunky terrain. The Moon does have a little more give to it with that extra 10mm of travel when plowing through rough stuff, but it's barely enough to discern, and I doubt you could tell much of a difference if you rode both bikes down the same trail back to back.
Both bikes do a good job of muting small bumps and chatter - the Moon is a bit softer in the initial and mid part of the shock stroke than the Bronson, but both bikes are undoubtedly a "heels down flat out" kind of ride.
Another difference between these two bikes is the frame material and spec options. The Bronson has four different aluminum build choices and a whopping ten different builds with carbon that you could choose from; it's also available as a 'frame only' in both carbon and aluminum. The Moon has three build options and all of the frames are aluminum. When you put the bikes next to each other, looking at where they line up for the price, we have to compare Santa Cruz's aluminum Bronson S+. This is the nicest build one can get before going into carbon. It's slightly less spendy than the Moon, but has less high tier components.
This puts the Moon a bit above the Bronson in the element of builds, however, the Bronson has a water bottle mount on the downtube - something that the Moon misses the mark on.