EV/EBIT vs EV/EBITDA: Which Multiple to Use to Value a Company

EV/EBIT and EV/EBITDA measure the same enterprise value, but the gap between them reveals the real capital intensity of the target.

Introduction: two multiples, one gap that changes everything

Why can two companies with the same EV/EBITDA multiple show an EV/EBIT multiple that is nearly twice as high for one as for the other? The answer comes down to a single accounting line: depreciation and amortization. EV/EBIT and EV/EBITDA both divide enterprise value (EV) by an operating result, but the second ignores depreciation entirely while the first treats it as a real cost.

« I think that, every time you see the word EBITDA, you should substitute the words 'bullshit earnings.' », Charlie Munger, Poor Charlie's Almanack.

This deliberately provocative line from the American investor sums up a very real debate among valuation practitioners: interest, taxes and depreciation are charges the company actually pays or provisions for, and ignoring them can overstate its real cash-generating capacity.

Most valuation guides present EV/EBIT as the multiple to prefer once a company is capital-intensive, since it accounts for a real cost that EBITDA ignores. Market practice says the opposite: it is precisely in the most capital-intensive sectors, where depreciation policies vary the most from one peer to another, that EV/EBITDA remains the reference multiple, EV/EBIT serving there only as a diagnostic signal. This publication explains why, with a numerical demonstration to back it up.

Three reasons make this choice of multiple structural in 2026. First, the gap between EV/EBIT and EV/EBITDA widens with the capital intensity of the sector under analysis, a parameter that trading and transaction comparable databases must absolutely neutralize. Second, depreciation policies differ significantly between IFRS, the French general chart of accounts and Swiss GAAP FER, which makes EBIT more sensitive to accounting choices than EBITDA. Third, LBO practice continues to rely on EBITDA as a proxy for debt repayment capacity, while long-term fundamental analysis increasingly favors EBIT or free cash flow.

This publication covers, in turn, the definition and origin of these two multiples, the reasons their gap should alert the analyst, the method of calculation and interpretation, the situations in which to prefer one or the other, a numerical demonstration of the comparability risk, their respective advantages and limitations, why it is always worth cross-checking a multiples valuation against a DCF approach, five common mistakes, two numbered cases (France and Switzerland), and the questions business owners ask most often on the topic.

Have your company valued with the multiple suited to your sector

Hectelion values companies in France and Switzerland by selecting the comparable multiples that are genuinely relevant to the target's sector and capital-intensity profile, in complete independence from banks and intermediaries.

→ Book a confidential 30-minute call

Acontos: estimate your company's value online for free

Before going into the detail of how these two multiples are calculated and interpreted, know that Hectelion has developed Acontos, an online audit, due diligence and business valuation tool, powered by Anthropic's Claude Sonnet 5 artificial intelligence and calibrated against Hectelion's own methodology. From your accounts, it normalizes EBITDA, reconstructs EBIT and applies real sector multiples to produce a first estimate of the value of your shares within minutes, free of charge and without retaining any document. Launch the valuation simulator to get an order of magnitude, then keep reading to understand how these two multiples are built.

Definition: what do EV/EBIT and EV/EBITDA measure?

EV/EBITDA divides enterprise value (Enterprise Value, the sum of the market capitalization or share price, net financial debt and, where applicable, minority interests) by EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization), an operating result calculated before financial charges, taxes, depreciation and provisions. EV/EBIT divides the same enterprise value by EBIT (Earnings Before Interest and Taxes, the operating result after depreciation), a result lower than EBITDA by the exact amount of the period's depreciation and amortization.

The relationship between the two earnings figures is purely arithmetic: EBIT = EBITDA minus depreciation, amortization and provisions. For a given enterprise value, the EV/EBIT multiple is therefore mechanically higher than the EV/EBITDA multiple whenever the company records positive depreciation, which is the case for almost all industrial companies or companies with significant fixed assets.

Wall Street Prep illustrates this gap with three companies each valued at 1 billion dollars with an identical EBITDA of 100 million dollars, an EV/EBITDA multiple of 10.0x in all three cases. Once depreciation is taken into account, the EV/EBIT multiple comes out at 10.5x and 10.8x for the two low capital-intensity companies, against 25.0x for the high capital-intensity company, even though all three showed a strictly identical EV/EBITDA multiple.

This multiples-based approach is codified internationally by IVS 105 of the International Valuation Standards Council, which identifies the market approach as the approach to prefer whenever reliable, verifiable and relevant market data is available, with EBITDA, EBIT, net income and revenue among the usual units of comparison. IVS 105 specifies that selecting which multiple to retain within the range observed across the comparable sample is a matter of the valuer's judgment, in light of qualitative and quantitative factors specific to the target, capital intensity among them.

In summary: on method of calculation, EV/EBITDA ignores depreciation entirely while EV/EBIT treats it as a real cost. On multiple level, EV/EBIT is always equal to or higher than EV/EBITDA for a given company. On sensitivity to accounting choices, EV/EBITDA stays unaffected by depreciation policy, while EV/EBIT depends on it directly, which complicates comparisons between companies applying different frameworks or useful-life assumptions. On reading capital intensity, only the gap between the two multiples reveals the real weight of maintenance investment in a given company's income statement.

Origin: why two multiples coexist

EBIT, the operating result after depreciation, is the older of the two indicators: it follows directly from the classic presentation of the income statement and serves as the basis for corporate tax calculation in most jurisdictions. EBITDA, by contrast, is a more recent construct, popularized in the 1970s-1980s by American executive John Malone at the helm of cable operator TCI, who faced massive infrastructure investment that crushed his net income without reflecting the reality of his operating cash generation.

The indicator then spread widely during the leveraged buy-out wave of the 1980s, when private equity firms adopted it as a proxy for a target's senior debt repayment capacity, a usage still dominant today in leverage ratio calculations (net debt / EBITDA). EV/EBIT never disappeared from valuation practice, but it occupies a narrower role than EV/EBITDA: it mainly serves as an occasional diagnostic signal, notably when a target's capital intensity differs sharply from that of its comparables, a limitation of EBITDA that Charlie Munger summed up in his own way.

The regulatory framework reinforces this heterogeneity in depreciation practice. In France, the general chart of accounts (art. 214-1) requires the useful life of a fixed asset to be determined by reference to physical, technical, legal or economic criteria, retaining the shortest life where several criteria apply simultaneously. In Switzerland, art. 960a of the Code of Obligations makes depreciation mandatory for assets subject to wear or aging, calculated according to generally accepted commercial principles, and distinguishes this depreciation from value adjustments intended to cover other losses in value. The Swiss GAAP FER 18 standard (tangible fixed assets) further requires disclosure in the notes of the depreciation method used and the estimated useful life for each asset category. Two economically comparable companies applying different useful lives or methods under these frameworks will therefore show a different EBIT for a strictly identical EBITDA.

Why the gap between EV/EBIT and EV/EBITDA should alert the analyst

Five reasons explain why a significant gap between EV/EBIT and EV/EBITDA should systematically be investigated before settling on a valuation:

It reveals the target's real capital intensity: a small gap signals a business that consumes few fixed assets, a wide gap signals a heavy production base whose renewal will weigh on future cash flows.
It exposes cross-sector comparison bias: comparing the EV/EBITDA multiple of a services company to that of a heavy industrial masks a difference in earnings quality that only EV/EBIT can correct.
It reflects accounting choices that can differ from one peer to another: two economically comparable companies can show very different EBIT depending on the useful life assigned to their assets or the accounting framework applied (IFRS, French GAAP, Swiss GAAP FER), without their EBITDA being affected at all.
It affects the sustainable debt capacity of a deal structure: an EBITDA that is high relative to EBIT can give a false impression of repayment capacity if the required maintenance investment is not correctly anticipated in the business plan.
It directly influences the anticipated exit multiple: a savvy industrial acquirer systematically cross-checks the quoted EV/EBITDA multiple against the target's real maintenance capex, which can narrow the gap between the valuation expected on an EBITDA basis and the price actually obtained.

How to calculate and interpret the gap between the two multiples

The calculation starts with building a normalized EBITDA for the target, restated for non-recurring items and above-market executive compensation, a step covered in our publication on normalized EBITDA. EBIT is then obtained by deducting from this normalized EBITDA the depreciation, amortization and provisions actually borne by the company over the reference period, with no further restatement since these charges correspond to a real consumption of assets.

Enterprise value is estimated separately, most often through the trading multiples method or the transaction multiples method applied to a sample of sector comparables, then cross-checked where relevant against a DCF method discounted at the target's weighted average cost of capital. Both multiples, EV/EBITDA and EV/EBIT, are then calculated from this same enterprise value and compared against the gap observed across the comparable sample: a gap for the target markedly wider than the sector's signals an atypical capital intensity or depreciation policy that should be investigated before settling on the valuation. Equity value is finally obtained by deducting net financial debt from the retained enterprise value, via the enterprise value to equity bridge.

When to prefer EV/EBIT or EV/EBITDA?

EV/EBITDA remains the default reference multiple across almost every sector, including the most capital-intensive ones (manufacturing, transport, energy, real estate, network infrastructure). This may look counter-intuitive, since EBITDA ignores capex, but it comes down to comparability: in these sectors, the comparables' asset base most often carries a heterogeneous age and depreciation policy (useful life, method used, recency of investment), which makes EBIT, and therefore EV/EBIT, poorly comparable from one peer to another for purely accounting reasons, unrelated to their relative economic value. When the analyst still wants to factor in the real weight of capex in a capital-intensive sector, market practice favors an EV/(EBITDA minus capex) multiple or a DCF cross-check, rather than a switch to EV/EBIT.

EV/EBIT becomes usable without particular reservation, and is sometimes slightly preferable, when the target and its comparables show low and homogeneous capital intensity: services, engineering, consulting, software and SaaS models, where other specific multiples can also apply (see our ARR multiple for SaaS valuation entry). Depreciation there is low, so unlikely to introduce a comparability bias, and EV/EBIT then offers a slightly more complete read of profitability, at no additional comparability cost. EV/EBIT also keeps its usefulness as an occasional diagnostic signal, to compare companies across different sectors or to spot an abnormal gap within a sample, but rarely as the valuation multiple retained in its own right within a capital-intensive sector. The analysis of debt capacity in an LBO structure continues, besides, to rely on EV/EBITDA, which remains the standard market proxy for debt service. In practice, both multiples are most often calculated and presented side by side, the gap between them being in itself a useful piece of information for the negotiation.

Practical summary:

Target and comparables profile	Multiple to use	Why
Low, homogeneous capital intensity (services, consulting, engineering, software, SaaS)	EV/EBITDA or EV/EBIT, interchangeable	Low depreciation, negligible comparability bias
High capital intensity (industry, transport, energy, real estate, infrastructure)	EV/EBITDA	Heterogeneous depreciation policies across peers (useful life, method, fleet age)
Comparison between two sectors of different capital intensity	EV/EBIT, as a diagnostic signal	Partly neutralizes the capital-intensity gap between the two profiles
Debt capacity analysis (LBO)	EV/EBITDA	Standard market proxy for debt service
Capital-intensive sector where real capex must be factored into the valuation	EV/(EBITDA minus capex) or DCF	Captures real capex without importing the accounting noise of EV/EBIT

Numerical demonstration: why two identical companies can show very different EV/EBIT multiples

Numerical example built for teaching purposes, unrelated to any real engagement.

Two industrial companies, Company H and Company I, own exactly the same production equipment, acquired for EUR 60 million, generate the same normalized EBITDA of EUR 10 million, and are valued by the market at the same enterprise value of EUR 50 million, an identical EV/EBITDA multiple of 5.0x for both. Nothing in their economic reality sets them apart.

Company H depreciates its equipment over a 15-year useful life, an annual charge of EUR 4.0 million and an EBIT of EUR 6.0 million, for an EV/EBIT multiple of 8.3x. Company I depreciates the same type of equipment over an 8-year useful life, an annual charge of EUR 7.5 million and an EBIT of EUR 2.5 million, for an EV/EBIT multiple of 20.0x. The only difference between the two companies is an accounting assumption about useful life, disclosed in the notes to their accounts under the applicable regulatory framework, not a difference in value, operating profitability or real asset-renewal needs.

An analyst comparing Company H and Company I on EV/EBIT alone would wrongly conclude that Company I is far more expensive than Company H, when in fact they are strictly equivalent economically and identically valued by the market. EV/EBITDA, by contrast, shows the same relative value for both: it is precisely this robustness to the accounting assumption that makes it the reference multiple in sectors where that assumption varies widely from one peer to another.

Who to call on to arbitrate between EV/EBIT and EV/EBITDA

Two distinct skills come into play. The first is the ability to build a genuinely homogeneous comparable sample in terms of sector, size and capital intensity, a precondition for any reliable comparison between the two multiples. The second is the ability to interpret the observed gap in light of the target's real business plan, its asset-renewal needs and the financing structure envisaged, an exercise that goes beyond the mere mechanical calculation of ratios.

Hectelion supports business owners and investment funds with business valuation in France and Switzerland, selecting and restating the multiples genuinely relevant to the target's profile rather than mechanically applying an average sector multiple. This approach draws on our reference publication on sector EV/EBITDA valuation multiples in France and Switzerland, which details the levels observed by sector.

Advantages: simplicity, comparability, cash-flow proxy

EV/EBITDA offers immediate comparability between companies applying different depreciation policies, a simplicity of calculation that makes it the most widely used multiple in trading and transaction comparable databases, and a reasonable proxy for debt repayment capacity in leveraged structures.

EV/EBIT offers, in theory, better accounting for the real cost of renewing fixed assets and lower sensitivity to optimization strategies that favor EBITDA growth at the expense of maintenance investment. This advantage, however, stays mostly confined to intra-company comparisons or to sectors with homogeneous depreciation policy, for the comparability reasons detailed above.

Limitations: what neither multiple measures

EV/EBITDA does not show the amount of investment the company must commit to maintain its production base, which can mask a significant recurring cash need in capital-intensive sectors. It also ignores changes in working capital requirements, which can obscure cash tied up in inventory or receivables.

EV/EBIT, for its part, remains sensitive to accounting choices on useful life and depreciation method, which can distort comparisons between peers applying different conventions, even within the same sector.

Neither multiple replaces a DCF method for high-growth companies or those with a still-unstable profitability profile, where the multiples method shows its clearest limits.

Why always cross-check a multiples valuation against a DCF approach

The multiples method and the DCF method measure value through two independent routes: the first by market comparison, the second by intrinsic projection of cash flows discounted at the weighted average cost of capital. Systematically cross-checking the two results, whichever multiple is retained between EV/EBIT and EV/EBITDA, remains a worthwhile discipline even when the comparable sample looks solid, a practice detailed in our publication on business valuation approaches and methods.

A significant gap between the two methods is never trivial. When the DCF value comes out markedly higher than the multiples-based value, this can signal that the multiples base retained is not the right one: a comparable sample that is too narrow or poorly selected, a target EBITDA that is insufficiently normalized relative to the sector's, or a sector multiple applied without accounting for a growth or margin profile significantly above that of the comparables.

When it is the reverse, a DCF markedly lower than the multiples, the gap can reveal business-plan assumptions in the DCF that are too optimistic, or conversely market multiples themselves inflated by an exuberant sector context, not representative of the target's intrinsic value.

In both cases, the gap should never be resolved by mechanically retaining the average of the two values: it calls for a critical review of each method's assumptions, EBITDA normalization, relevance of the comparable sample, consistency of growth assumptions and of the weighted average cost of capital retained, before arbitrating between the two results or narrowing the final value range.

The 5 mistakes to avoid

Mistake 1: Comparing an EV/EBIT to an EV/EBITDA within the same sample

Mixing the two multiples within the same comparables table, for instance applying a sector-average EV/EBIT multiple to the target's EBITDA, produces a mechanically wrong valuation, most often overstated. Each multiple must be applied to its matching earnings figure, on a homogeneous sample.

Mistake 2: Relying on EV/EBITDA without ever cross-checking it against real capex

Retaining the EV/EBITDA multiple without ever confronting it with the target's real maintenance capex amounts to ignoring the cost of renewing its production base. The correct reflex is not to switch to EV/EBIT, whose comparability across capital-intensive peers is itself fragile, but to cross-check EV/EBITDA against the forecast investment plan or against an EV/(EBITDA minus capex) multiple.

Mistake 3: Ignoring differences in depreciation policy between comparables

Two economically close companies can show very different EBIT depending on the useful life assigned to similar assets or the accounting framework applied. Comparing their EV/EBIT multiples without prior restatement exposes the analysis to wrong conclusions about their relative valuation.

Mistake 4: Not normalizing EBITDA before calculating both multiples

An EBITDA not restated for non-recurring items, above-market executive compensation or charges tied to non-operating assets mechanically distorts the resulting EBIT calculation, and therefore both multiples at once.

Mistake 5: Applying a listed multiple to an unlisted SME without a discount

EV/EBIT and EV/EBITDA multiples drawn from samples of listed companies embed a liquidity and a scale with no equivalent for an SME. Applying them without a size and illiquidity discount systematically overstates the value of an unlisted company.

Case 1: French automotive supplier, a multiple gap that reveals capital intensity

Case built for teaching purposes based on observed market practice.

Company F SAS, a tier-2 supplier to the automotive industry based in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, is the subject of a business valuation as part of a planned sale. The transaction comparable sample retained shows a sector multiple of 5.0x EBITDA, applied to a normalized EBITDA of EUR 8 million, leading to an enterprise value of EUR 40 million.

Company F's depreciation charges amount to EUR 3.5 million over the reference period, reflecting a fleet of presses and assembly lines renewed every seven to ten years. EBIT therefore comes out at EUR 4.5 million, an EV/EBIT multiple of 8.9x for the same EUR 40 million enterprise value. The 3.9-point gap between the two multiples is not an anomaly: it reflects the sector's normal capital intensity, where depreciation policies vary widely from one supplier to another depending on the age of their industrial fleet. The valuation team retains EV/EBITDA as the reference multiple for the negotiation, but cross-checks the resulting valuation with a DCF method explicitly incorporating the forecast maintenance investment plan, before settling on a narrowed value range of around EUR 38 to 41 million.

Case 2: Swiss software publisher, a limited multiple gap

Case built for teaching purposes based on observed market practice.

Company G SA, a business-software publisher based in Zug, is the subject of a valuation as part of a shareholder refinancing transaction. The trading comparable sample retained shows a sector multiple of 8.0x EBITDA, applied to a normalized EBITDA of CHF 3 million, leading to an enterprise value of CHF 24 million.

Company G's depreciation charges amount to only CHF 0.3 million, essentially the amortization of capitalized development costs, the company holding neither an industrial fleet nor significant operating real estate. EBIT comes out at CHF 2.7 million, an EV/EBIT multiple of 8.9x, a gap of only 0.9 point with the EV/EBITDA multiple. This narrow gap confirms the company's light capital-intensity profile: the two multiples are interchangeable here, with no comparability bias tied to depreciation, and the valuation team retains either one indifferently as the basis for the negotiation.

A word from the CEO

« In our valuation practice, we regularly see business owners, and sometimes buyers themselves, look only at the EV/EBITDA multiple quoted for their sector, without asking what it hides. That is a mistake: the gap with EV/EBIT is often the fastest signal of a company's real capital intensity.

A flattering EV/EBITDA multiple can hide an asset-renewal need that will weigh on the acquirer's cash flow from the very first years after the takeover. Conversely, a high EV/EBIT multiple in a genuinely low-capital-intensity company most often reflects an overly aggressive depreciation policy rather than a real economic cost.

At Hectelion, we systematically calculate both multiples and explain the observed gap rather than staying silent about it. It is this gap, correctly interpreted, that makes it possible to validate the retained value and secure the negotiation, for seller and buyer alike.

Aristide Ruot, Founder and CEO, Hectelion SA

FAQ: the 10 essential questions on EV/EBIT and EV/EBITDA

Introduction: what to remember before the questions

The following questions cover the most frequent concerns of business owners and CFOs when comparing an EV/EBIT multiple to an EV/EBITDA multiple as part of a valuation or a sale negotiation.

Q1: What is the exact difference between EV/EBIT and EV/EBITDA?

Both multiples divide the same enterprise value by a different operating result: EBITDA before depreciation, EBIT after depreciation. EBIT is therefore always lower than or equal to EBITDA, and the EV/EBIT multiple always higher than or equal to the EV/EBITDA multiple.

Q2: Why is the EV/EBIT multiple almost always higher than the EV/EBITDA multiple?

Because EBIT is obtained by deducting depreciation and amortization from EBITDA, an amount that is almost always positive. Dividing the same enterprise value by a smaller denominator mechanically gives a higher multiple.

Q3: Which multiple should be used to compare companies from different sectors?

EV/EBIT is generally more reliable for comparing companies from different sectors, since it partly neutralizes the capital-intensity gaps that EV/EBITDA ignores entirely. It remains, however, sensitive to differences in depreciation policy between the sectors compared.

Q4: Is EV/EBITDA a good proxy for available cash flow?

It is an imperfect proxy: it ignores maintenance investment and changes in working capital requirements, two items that can account for a significant share of the cash actually generated, particularly in capital-intensive sectors.

Q5: How does a company's depreciation policy affect its EV/EBIT multiple?

A longer useful life or a straight-line method rather than a declining-balance one reduces the annual depreciation charge, increases EBIT and therefore lowers the EV/EBIT multiple for a given enterprise value, with no effect on EV/EBITDA.

Q6: Can both multiples be used at the same time in a valuation?

Yes, this is in fact the recommended practice: systematically calculating both multiples on the same comparable sample makes it possible to detect an abnormal gap and investigate its origin before settling on a valuation.

Q7: Why does Charlie Munger criticize EBITDA?

Charlie Munger's criticism of EBITDA was that it excludes charges the company genuinely bears, interest, taxes and depreciation, which can give an overly favorable picture of its real economic profitability, particularly in capital-intensive sectors.

Q8: Is the EV/EBITDA multiple the same in France and Switzerland?

No, multiple levels vary by sector and jurisdiction depending on the depth of the transaction market, the structure of the available comparable sample, and local financing conditions. Our publication on sector EV/EBITDA multiples in France and Switzerland details these gaps.

Q9: Should EBITDA be normalized before calculating the multiple?

Yes, systematically. An EBITDA not restated for non-recurring items or above-market executive compensation distorts both the EV/EBITDA multiple and, in turn, the EV/EBIT multiple calculated from it.

Q10: Which multiple should be preferred to value an industrial SME ahead of a sale?

For an industrial SME, EV/EBITDA generally remains the multiple retained for the negotiation, since the available comparables' asset base most often shows ages and depreciation policies too heterogeneous for EV/EBIT to be reliable. The gap between the two multiples still carries diagnostic value, to be cross-checked against the SME's real maintenance investment plan rather than used as a stand-alone valuation basis.

Estimate your company's value with Acontos, Hectelion's online simulator

To extend this reading with a concrete figure, Hectelion makes available Acontos, its online audit, due diligence and business valuation tool. Powered by Anthropic's Claude Sonnet 5 artificial intelligence and calibrated against Hectelion's methodology, it reads your accounts, normalizes EBITDA, reconstructs EBIT and applies real sector multiples to estimate the value of your shares within minutes.

Launch the valuation simulator for free: the tool is confidential, retains no document and does not replace a formal valuation, but it gives a first reliable order of magnitude before discussing it with our team.

Conclusion: two complementary readings of the same value

EV/EBIT and EV/EBITDA are not two competing multiples but two complementary readings of the same enterprise value, each sensitive to a different parameter, capital intensity for one, accounting choices for the other. Retaining only one of the two multiples without examining the gap with the other means forgoing valuable diagnostic information, particularly in sectors where fixed assets weigh heavily on the income statement. A rigorous valuation systematically calculates both multiples, explains the gap in light of the target's real business plan, and only settles on a valuation once that gap has been correctly interpreted.

The safest reflex is to resist the intuition that EBIT, because it includes a real charge, must automatically be the more rigorous multiple. In a capital-intensive sector, it is the opposite: EV/EBITDA shields the comparison from depreciation accounting choices, while EV/EBIT only becomes reliable once the comparable sample has been made genuinely homogeneous. Systematically cross-checking a multiples valuation against an independent DCF approach remains, ultimately, the best safeguard against a poorly chosen multiple or a misleading comparable sample.

Article summary

EV/EBITDA divides enterprise value by an operating result calculated before depreciation, EV/EBIT by the same result after depreciation. The EV/EBIT multiple is therefore always higher than or equal to the EV/EBITDA multiple for a given company, the gap between the two growing with the sector's capital intensity.

EV/EBITDA remains the default reference multiple, including in capital-intensive sectors (industry, transport, energy, real estate), precisely because depreciation policies are most often heterogeneous from one peer to another there. EV/EBIT becomes fully usable, with no comparability reservation, in low capital-intensity sectors (services, engineering, software), and elsewhere keeps a diagnostic-signal role rather than that of a retained valuation multiple.

The France and Switzerland numbered cases presented in this article show that a multiple gap of several points signals a real capital intensity worth investigating, while a gap limited to less than a point confirms a light capital-intensity profile. Whichever multiple is retained, systematically cross-checking the valuation against an independent DCF approach helps detect an abnormal gap revealing a poorly chosen comparable sample or a poorly normalized EBITDA.

Five mistakes come up most often: mixing the two multiples within the same sample, relying on EV/EBITDA alone in a capital-intensive sector, ignoring differences in depreciation policy between comparables, not normalizing EBITDA before calculation, and applying a listed multiple to an unlisted SME without a size and illiquidity discount.