How Much Does a SaaS Valuation Cost? Prices and Fees 2026 (France & Switzerland)

Introduction: how much does a SaaS valuation really cost in 2026?

In both France and Switzerland, a SaaS valuation most often costs between EUR 6,000 and 35,000 (CHF 8,000 to 40,000), depending on the depth of cohort and churn analysis required by the recipient of the report. The most complex engagements, multi-segment or spanning several geographies, regularly exceed EUR 35,000 (CHF 40,000) with no fixed ceiling, market practice observed by Hectelion, 2026. This question comes up systematically whenever the head of a subscription software company is preparing a funding round, a minority sale, a dispute between shareholders, or a purchase price allocation following an acquisition.

A SaaS valuation determines the economic value of a subscription-based business from its annualized recurring revenue, the stability of its customer base, and the attrition risk weighing on those future cash flows. The international valuation standards published by the International Valuation Standards Council place this exercise within the family of intangible assets that generate identifiable future economic benefits, a qualification that applies fully to a recurring subscriber base. For a detailed definition of the SaaS model and its own valuation methods, the article software and SaaS valuation sets out the full methodological framework; this article focuses on the concrete price of an engagement.

"An intangible asset is an identifiable non-monetary asset without physical substance, controlled by an entity, from which future economic benefits are expected.", IASB, IAS 38, paragraph 8.

Three converging trends make the price question more pressing in 2026.

First, the spread of artificial intelligence across sales and support functions at SaaS companies is changing how growth and retention metrics are read, forcing valuers to document the origin of revenue flows more precisely rather than relying on a headline gross ARR figure.

Second, investors and buyers no longer accept an annualized revenue figure without underlying cohort analysis, which mechanically increases the due diligence workload and therefore its cost.

Third, the France-Switzerland market for funding rounds and minority sales of SaaS companies has broadened, multiplying the situations in which an independent valuation becomes a closing condition rather than a simple comfort option.

This article details the 2026 price ranges by engagement level, the SaaS-specific factors that move the fee, billing modes and timelines, a fair comparison of available providers, Hectelion's pricing, the levers for controlling the budget without losing defensibility, 2026 market trends, the most costly mistakes, and a priced case built from a Series B funding round.

The price of a SaaS valuation at a glance: 2026 ranges

The table below summarizes the three engagement levels observed in the France-Switzerland market, from pre-revenue SaaS through to a Series B+ raise. It serves as a scoping benchmark before any conversation with a firm, whether the engagement is a first indicative figure, a defensible report, or a complex file tied to a significant funding round.

Indicative ranges, market practice observed by Hectelion in the France-Switzerland SaaS valuation market, 2026: a market observation, not a published rate card. They track the maturity of the SaaS indicators to be documented (ARR, net revenue retention, CAC, and LTV) and the method used: DCF/FCFE once ARR is established, SaaS transaction comparables to benchmark a market multiple, and venture-style logic once the company sits at the center of a Series B+ raise calling for a defensible post-money valuation. In practice, a SaaS business often sits toward the top of each bracket, or beyond the "complex file" bracket, given the volume of customer data to process in a full cohort due diligence. See also startup valuation for the pre-revenue bracket.

Get an objective budget for your SaaS valuation engagement

Before going into the detail of pricing factors, talk directly with Hectelion to scope the perimeter, the retention level expected, and the budget for your engagement. Book a call, 30 minutes, confidential. This conversation makes it possible to identify upfront whether your file belongs in the indicative, defensible, or complex bracket, and to avoid a quote built on a poorly scoped perimeter.

Acontos: get a free online estimate of your SaaS business's value

Before going further, note 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 by Hectelion's methodology. From your accounts, it produces a first estimate of the value of your shares within a few minutes, free of charge and without retaining any document. Launch the valuation simulator to get an order of magnitude before reading further into the SaaS-specific factors below.

What drives the price: cohorts, churn, and ARR maturity

• The size and maturity of ARR directly influence the volume of work. A young company, with a short billing history and a single customer segment, requires a lighter analysis than a multi-year company whose ARR aggregates several generations of contracts, commercial discounts, and pricing migrations.
• The depth of churn and cohort analysis required by the recipient of the report remains the single most structuring factor for a SaaS engagement: reconstructing the behavior of each monthly customer cohort, isolating logo churn from value churn, and documenting net revenue retention (NRR) often accounts for half of the total engagement time.
• The number of customer segments and geographies covered mechanically increases the scope, each segment requiring its own retention curve and conversion rate.
• The purpose of the engagement drives the level of evidentiary rigor required: a valuation intended for an institutional investor in a funding round, or for a purchase price allocation (PPA), requires a higher level of defensibility than a simple internal estimate.
• The quality and accessibility of billing data determine the actual duration of the engagement: direct access to the subscription platform and the CRM significantly reduces processing time, whereas billing spread across several tools lengthens it.
• The complexity of contractual structures, spanning seat-based pricing, usage-based pricing, and multi-year commitments, complicates ARR normalization and justifies additional analysis time, particularly for an intangible asset valuation when the technology component must be isolated.
• The degree of dependence on a limited number of key accounts within ARR deserves particular attention: a customer base excessively concentrated on a handful of major accounts increases perceived risk and complicates the modeling of expected churn, which also lengthens the file's processing time.

Fixed fee or time and materials: how a SaaS valuation engagement is billed

In practice, the large majority of SaaS valuation engagements are billed on a fixed-fee basis, on a perimeter validated during the scoping call and formalized in an engagement letter. The fixed fee offers budget predictability for the company's leadership, provided the initial perimeter (number of segments, depth of cohort analysis, number of legal entities) remains stable.

Time-and-materials billing mainly applies when the perimeter remains uncertain at the outset, for example within a multi-entity group whose ARR consolidation is not yet stabilized, or when the engagement starts before a funding round's timeline has been finalized.

In both cases, a priced amendment governs any scope extension discovered during the engagement, particularly if the cohort analysis reveals customer segments not identified at the outset.

Process and timeline: the steps of a SaaS valuation

The engagement starts with scoping and the signature of an engagement letter specifying the perimeter, the reference date, the recipient of the report, and the list of expected access and documents, notably the subscription platform export, the billing history, and the master agreements. Next comes the collection of billing data and the cohort table from the subscription platform, the CRM, and accounting, generally the most time-consuming step for a SaaS engagement.

The team then reprocesses annualized ARR and MRR, analyzes logo churn and value churn, and calculates net retention by cohort. The choice of method follows from this: an ARR or MRR multiple adjusted for growth and retention, discounted cash flows built on SaaS metrics (CAC, LTV, churn), and, where relevant, the replacement cost of the technology component if it must be isolated for PPA purposes. An internal cross-review precedes delivery of the report, followed by an oral presentation to leadership or the investment committee.

For an indicative single-segment valuation, allow 2 to 4 weeks; for a defensible file with documented cohorts, 4 to 8 weeks; for a complex multi-segment file or one linked to an in-depth financial due diligence, 8 to 14 weeks.

Concretely, a typical engagement runs through seven steps:

1. signature of the engagement letter and scoping of the perimeter;
2. submission of documentation and SaaS indicators (ARR, cohorts, churn, subscription contracts);
3. question-and-answer exchange with leadership;
4. drafting of a report draft;
5. presentation and discussion of the assumptions and multiple retained;
6. integration of corrections;
7. delivery of the final report.

This report then serves as direct supporting evidence during a funding round, the allocation of employee stock options, or a share sale.

Comparing providers: Big Four, independent boutiques, and accountants

Three categories of providers operate in SaaS valuation, each with its own legitimate use cases.

Big Four firms: they have large teams and international coverage suited to very large cross-border files or listed groups, with correspondingly higher fees than a boutique structure.

Independent boutique firms, of which Hectelion is one: they position themselves on transactions of EUR/CHF 2 to 500 million, with dual France-Switzerland expertise and economic independence from traditional financial intermediaries; this format is particularly well suited to SMEs and mid-caps in a Series A to C funding round or a minority sale.

Accountants: they offer local proximity and good knowledge of the company's accounts, useful for a first internal estimate or a very small engagement, but rarely equipped for an in-depth SaaS cohort analysis or to defend a valuation in front of an investment fund.

Automated online estimation platforms: this fourth category provides a free or low-cost order of magnitude within a few minutes; it is a useful preparation step before engaging a professional, but it documents neither the cohort analysis nor the churn an institutional investor expects, and therefore cannot substitute for a defensible report.

The choice depends less on a quality hierarchy than on the fit between the file's perimeter, its financial stakes, and the final recipient of the report.

Why choose Hectelion among these categories?

Eight concrete points set Hectelion apart from other providers:

• A founder's perspective, not just a valuer's: before pricing ARR and customer cohorts, Aristide Ruot personally led funding rounds and managed cash-flow tensions at the head of his own companies; this operational experience of entrepreneurial risk, rarely shared by a purely academic valuer, directly informs the reading of the growth assumptions retained in the report.
• A budget that follows the file, not an imposed rate card: the fee adjusts to the actual maturity of ARR, the number of customer segments, and the depth of cohort work genuinely required, far from the uniform rate grid a large firm applies regardless of the engagement's real perimeter.
• A methodology built for the subscription model: an ARR multiple adjusted for net retention, a DCF built on SaaS metrics, month-by-month cohort analysis, a specific expertise personally led by Aristide Ruot, Ph.D., rather than delegated to a generalist team.
• One team from the first estimate to closing: valuation, due diligence, funding rounds, external growth transactions, and financial instrument structuring are all handled by the same points of contact, with no coordination to rebuild across several providers.
• The rigor of a large firm, without its layers: the same sensitivity tests, the same IVSC standards applied to churn and retention assumptions, but a leaner structure that avoids the delays and fees typical of international firms.
• A practice built natively on both sides of the border: France and Switzerland files are not handled through a simple transposition of a single framework, but by a team that directly masters both legal and tax environments.
• No ties to the investors or intermediaries involved: Hectelion receives no compensation from any fund, bank, or prospective buyer involved in the file, which allows it to exclusively defend the position of the leadership that commissions the engagement.
• A timeline fixed from scoping onward: from the first order of magnitude obtained via Acontos to the defensible report, the delivery timeline is announced at the first conversation and kept, even when the file opens a few weeks before closing.

Point of caution: whichever provider is retained, ask directly about the financial ties it has with the investor, fund, or buyer present in your file; a report produced by a valuer who is compensated or influenced by a single stakeholder loses the probative force needed in front of an investment committee or a demanding buyer.

Rule of 40: the ratio that summarizes a SaaS company's growth quality

Beyond the ARR multiple, serious investors and valuers systematically confront a SaaS business with the Rule of 40, which adds the ARR's annual growth rate to its profitability margin (EBITDA or free cash flow, depending on the convention used): a company that exceeds 40% on this sum is deemed to be in a healthy balance between growth and profitability, regardless of the split between the two components.

This ratio, popularized by sector analyses from specialized funds such as Bessemer Venture Partners, serves directly as a screening filter when scoping a valuation engagement: a company with strong growth but heavy losses, or conversely profitable but stagnant, calls for a finer analysis of projection assumptions than one that naturally sits above the 40% threshold.

In the priced case developed further below, 42% growth combined with 108% net retention effectively satisfies this criterion even with still-modest profitability, which objectively justifies the above-median ARR multiple retained by the valuer.

Leadership that spontaneously presents this calculation when scoping its engagement makes the quality of its growth immediately readable and reduces the time the valuer spends reviewing this question.

Hectelion's pricing: transparency on the status of the figures

The ranges presented in this article reflect the market practice observed by Hectelion on its SaaS valuation engagements conducted in France and Switzerland in 2026; they constitute neither an automatic quote nor an official published rate card, each engagement being individually priced after the scoping call.

Hectelion operates as an independent boutique firm, aligned with IVSC standards and AMF/SIX market practice, on transactions of EUR/CHF 2 to 500 million.

Hectelion is not FINMA-licensed and does not operate on listed transactions, public tender offers, or squeeze-outs; its scope covers non-listed SaaS companies, in the context of a funding round, a minority sale, a family succession, or a dispute between shareholders.

How to reduce the cost without losing defensibility

• Preparing a clean cohort table in advance, segmented by signature month, with logo churn, value churn, and upsell isolated line by line, considerably reduces the processing time billed by the valuer.
• Consolidating ARR and MRR in a single reference source before the engagement starts avoids back-and-forth reconciliation between the subscription platform, the CRM, and accounting.
• Precisely scoping the requested perimeter, avoiding specifying a complex file where a single-segment perimeter genuinely suffices, keeps the engagement within the appropriate price bracket.
• Planning the engagement's timeline in advance rather than aligning it to closing urgency avoids the surcharges tied to compressed timelines.
• Choosing the right engagement level from the outset, based on the actual recipient of the report (investor, bank, tax authority, or internal use), avoids paying for a level of defensibility higher than genuinely required, without ever sacrificing the methodological rigor the recipient expects.
• Documenting in writing the ARR and net retention rate calculation assumptions as of the fiscal year close, rather than reconstructing them after the fact for the engagement's needs, avoids costly reconstruction work and speeds up delivery of the report.

Four additional SaaS-specific levers go further still:

1. prepare the key SaaS indicators in advance, ARR, net retention rate, CAC, and LTV, in a format the valuer can use directly;
2. use Acontos for a free first scoping estimate before commissioning a defensible engagement;
3. stabilize the cap table before the mandate, rather than launching the valuation in the middle of a new funding round negotiation;
4. commission a single firm for a France-Switzerland file, rather than two local providers whose assumptions will then need to be reconciled.

These levers add to the first six without replacing them, and reduce the final budget without ever compromising on the methodological rigor expected by the recipient of the report.

2026 trends: artificial intelligence, market multiples, and the rise of France-Switzerland SaaS

2026 marks a shift in how SaaS metrics are read. The spread of artificial intelligence across sales, support, and product functions is changing the composition of ARR growth and requires more precisely distinguishing organic growth from growth driven by automation tools, a point now systematically examined during a funding round.

Meanwhile, market multiples applied to the recurring revenue of listed SaaS companies have fluctuated sharply since their 2021 peak, before stabilizing at markedly more moderate levels increasingly correlated with each company's growth, profitability, and net retention, which reinforces the importance of an individualized adjustment rather than a mechanically applied sector multiple.

By way of illustration, the sector indices tracked by SaaS Capital place valuation multiples for private SaaS companies between 3x and 10x current ARR in 2026, with a median close to 4.8x for self-funded companies and 5.3x for investor-backed companies, against peaks observed above 15x in 2021; this normalization illustrates the need to adjust any reference multiple to the actual growth and retention profile of the company being valued rather than applying it unchanged.

Finally, the France-Switzerland market for funding rounds and minority sales of SaaS companies continues to develop, driven by the maturation of a growing number of vertical B2B publishers, which multiplies the situations in which an independent valuation of the SaaS business becomes an expected part of the investment file.

The impact of artificial intelligence on SaaS metrics and valuation in 2026

Artificial intelligence now directly affects how SaaS metrics are read, beyond the effect on growth composition already discussed above.

On the cost side, automating customer support and part of implementation tasks through AI agents mechanically improves reported gross margin, which can artificially inflate the justified ARR multiple if the valuer does not distinguish structural, lasting gains from one-off savings tied to a tool still in a test phase.

On the churn side, AI-based predictive tools now make it possible to anticipate attrition several months ahead from usage signals, which improves the quality of retention plans but also complicates the valuer's assessment of future churn, who must distinguish retention that is genuinely secured from retention only anticipated by an unaudited internal model.

This same acceleration weighs directly on the replacement cost method: the more reproducible a piece of software or a typical SaaS architecture becomes thanks to generative artificial intelligence, the lower the reconstruction cost estimated under this method, which pushes the valuer toward a higher technological obsolescence factor than a few years ago. This same reproducibility is also fueling an explosion in the number of competing SaaS products, software, and applications across nearly every vertical segment, as technical barriers to entry have dropped considerably; the valuer must therefore factor this heightened competitive risk and more fragile differentiation into the multiple or discount rate retained, independently of ARR's historical performance alone.

Finally, the share of revenue generated by features themselves powered by artificial intelligence, whether billed as a surcharge or bundled into the base plan, must be isolated in the cohort analysis once it depends on variable inference costs, a cost the traditional fixed-subscription SaaS model did not carry to the same extent.

The 5 mistakes that cost the most

Mistake 1: confusing gross ARR with churn-adjusted ARR

Presenting gross ARR, without adjusting for value churn during the period, artificially inflates the reference base for the multiple applied. An experienced investor or buyer systematically restates this figure at the first review, which undermines the credibility of the entire file and lengthens the negotiation.

Mistake 2: applying a market multiple unadjusted for the growth and retention profile

Taking a median multiple observed across a panel of listed SaaS companies, without adjusting it to the actual growth, net retention, and gross margin of the company being valued, produces a value that is either overstated or understated. A market multiple is a starting point, never a conclusion.

Mistake 3: overlooking the contractual structure of subscriptions

A contract base mixing seat-based pricing, usage-based pricing, and multi-year commitments does not normalize the same way as a homogeneous ARR. Ignoring this heterogeneity leads to an unrealistic cash flow projection.

Mistake 4: underestimating the time needed to prepare cohort data

Launching a defensible engagement without having anticipated the extraction and formatting of cohort data from the subscription platform mechanically extends the timeline and the budget, often at the worst point in the closing calendar.

Mistake 5: confusing the valuation of the SaaS business with that of the technology component alone

The value of a SaaS company is not reducible to the replacement cost of its code. Isolating the technology alone, without valuing the customer base, the recurrence of revenue, and the commercial organization, systematically undervalues the business, except in the specific case of a PPA where this decomposition is precisely what is sought.

Case 1: valuing a B2B fleet management SaaS company in a Series B raise

Case built for illustrative purposes based on observed market practice. A French company publishing a vertical B2B fleet management SaaS product is preparing a Series B funding round and must provide its lead investor with an independent valuation of its business. The company reports ARR of EUR 3.2 million (about CHF 3.2 million), up from EUR 2.25 million the prior year, a 42% growth rate over twelve months. The cohort analysis shows 9% logo churn and 108% net revenue retention (NRR), with expansion of existing accounts more than offsetting attrition.

Based on these metrics, the valuer retains an ARR multiple of 5.5x, above the market median observed for SaaS companies of comparable size, given the combination of growth and net retention above 100%. The indicative value of the SaaS business therefore comes out at EUR 17.6 million (EUR 3.2 million x 5.5), or about CHF 17.6 million. As the investor requires cohort analysis documented month by month before validating this multiple, the file falls into the defensible bracket: valuation fees are set at EUR 28,000 (about CHF 30,000), for an engagement timeline of 6 weeks, consistent with the EUR 15,000 to 35,000 (CHF 18,000 to 40,000) range presented earlier in this article.

A consistency check using discounted cash flows built on SaaS metrics confirms this order of magnitude: projecting recurring gross margin over five years, with growth decelerating gradually from 42% to an 18% pace by the end of the period, and a discount rate reflecting the specific risk of a company still in a commercial expansion phase, the discounted value of cash flows falls within a band consistent with the multiples method, which reinforces the defensibility of the figure in front of the investment committee.

Case 2: Swiss HR SaaS at seed stage, indicative valuation at CHF 12,000

Case built for illustrative purposes based on observed market practice. Company H SA, publisher of a talent management SaaS solution for SMEs, based in Lausanne, generates CHF 480,000 in ARR from a single customer segment, exclusively French-speaking Swiss SMEs with fewer than fifty employees. The founders want a first estimate of the business's value before opening discussions with a local business angel for a minority investment, with no formal funding round yet underway.

Hectelion retains an ARR multiple of 4.2x, consistent with the median observed by SaaS Capital for self-funded companies of this size, adjusted downward from the sector median due to a net retention rate of 96%, below the 100% threshold that would signal net expansion of existing accounts. The indicative value of the business comes out at about CHF 2,016,000. The analysis is limited to a summary consistency check using the multiples method, without a full cohort due diligence, which places the quote at CHF 12,000, toward the low end of the indicative range. The engagement was completed in three weeks.

A word from our founder

Engagement after engagement, we find that a SaaS leader rarely underestimates the value of their ARR, but they almost always underestimate the time needed to document it properly for an investor or a buyer.

The difference between an indicative estimate and a defensible report has nothing to do with page count. It comes down to the depth of the cohort analysis and the ability to justify each retention assumption in front of an investment committee.

Our role at Hectelion is to turn scattered billing data into a defensible demonstration of value, without ever sacrificing transparency on the cost and the limitations of the exercise.

Aristide Ruot
Founder | Chief Executive Officer, Hectelion SA

FAQ: the 10 essential questions about the price of a SaaS valuation

Introduction: what to know before the questions

The questions below cover the budget-related points most frequently raised by SaaS company leadership when scoping a valuation engagement in France and Switzerland.

Q1: How much does a SaaS valuation cost?

In 2026, a SaaS valuation generally costs between EUR 6,000 and 35,000 (CHF 8,000 to 40,000) depending on the engagement level, with complex multi-segment files or those tied to a significant funding round regularly exceeding EUR 35,000 (CHF 40,000) with no fixed ceiling, Hectelion practice, 2026.

Q2: What is the difference between valuing software and valuing a SaaS business?

Valuing conventional software often focuses on a license or an isolated codebase, whereas valuing a SaaS business incorporates the recurrence of subscriptions, customer cohort behavior, and churn; see the article software and SaaS valuation for the detail of this methodological distinction. In practice, a SaaS valuer restates ARR by cohort before applying a multiple, while a conventional software valuation relies more on development cost or a sector royalty rate.

Q3: What is ARR and why is it central to the price of the engagement?

ARR annualizes recurring subscription revenue. The more its reconstruction requires restatements (discounts, pricing migrations, multiple segments), the more engagement time and therefore fees increase. Poorly consolidated ARR, mixing monthly and annual subscriptions without homogeneous annualization, forces the valuer to rebuild the series from raw billing data, which lengthens the engagement.

Q4: Does churn really influence the amount of fees?

Yes. Documenting churn by monthly cohort and net revenue retention is often the longest task in a defensible engagement, which explains the price gap between the indicative and defensible brackets.

Q5: Can the fees for a SaaS valuation be negotiated?

The perimeter is negotiated more than the day rate: reducing the number of segments analyzed or supplying cohort data that is already consolidated keeps the engagement at the low end of the range without giving up the report's defensibility.

Q6: Who pays for the valuation during a funding round?

In practice, the company raising funds typically commissions and pays the independent valuer, even when the investor makes it a condition of its investment. In some minority sale files, the cost can be contractually shared between the seller and the incoming investor, depending on the terms negotiated in the letter of intent.

Q7: Are valuation fees tax deductible?

Fees tied to a capital transaction (funding round, sale) generally follow the tax treatment applicable to transaction-related costs; a point to confirm with the company's accountant depending on the country and the exact nature of the transaction.

Q8: Is a SaaS valuation needed for a PPA after an acquisition?

Yes. Once a SaaS company is acquired, purchase price allocation generally requires isolating the value of the technology, the customer base, and contractual relationships, which falls into the defensible or complex bracket depending on the number of components to isolate.

Q9: How much time should be planned to value a fast-growing SaaS company?

Allow 4 to 8 weeks for a standard defensible file, and up to 14 weeks if rapid growth comes with a recent multiplication of customer segments or geographies covered. A growth plan carried by several successive funding rounds or rapid geographic expansion generally justifies positioning at the upper end of this timeline.

Q10: Can Acontos be used to estimate a SaaS business before commissioning an expert?

Yes, the Acontos simulator provides a free first order of magnitude from your accounts, useful for preparing the scoping conversation, but it does not replace a defensible valuation based on documented cohort analysis.

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 by Hectelion's methodology, it reads your accounts, normalizes your recurring revenue, and applies real market multiples to estimate the value of your shares within a few 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 reliable first order of magnitude before discussing it with our team.

Conclusion: documenting the cohorts, the real key to the price of a SaaS valuation

The price of a SaaS valuation does not depend first on the size of ARR, but on the depth of cohort and churn analysis needed to make that figure defensible in front of an investor, a buyer, or a tax authority.

In both France and Switzerland, the three brackets presented in this article, from EUR 6,000 to 15,000 for an indicative figure up to files exceeding EUR 35,000 for a complex perimeter, reflect above all this documentation work. Leadership that prepares a clean cohort table and consolidated ARR in advance mechanically reduces the budget for its engagement, without ever compromising on the methodological rigor the recipient of the report expects.

For any engagement beyond a simple indicative figure, working with an independent business valuation firm remains the safest way to secure a capital transaction.

Article summary

A SaaS valuation in 2026 costs between EUR 6,000 and 35,000 (CHF 8,000 to 40,000) depending on the depth of analysis required, with complex multi-segment files regularly exceeding this ceiling. The main cost factor remains the depth of cohort and churn analysis required, well ahead of the raw size of ARR.

Three methods structure the practice: an ARR or MRR multiple adjusted for growth and net retention, a DCF built on SaaS metrics, and the replacement cost of the technology component when it must be isolated for a PPA.

The priced case presented illustrates how 42% growth and 108% net retention justify an above-median multiple, for a quote consistent with the defensible bracket. Preparing cohort data in advance remains the most effective lever for controlling the budget without losing defensibility.

Sources

• Bessemer Venture Partners, State of the Cloud, sector reference on the Rule of 40 and SaaS metrics
• EXPERTsuisse, professional standards applicable to business valuation in Switzerland
• IFRS Foundation, IAS 38, Intangible Assets
• IVSC, International Valuation Standards
• OECD, BEPS project and DEMPE analysis of intangible assets
• SaaS Capital, quarterly index of private SaaS company valuation multiples

Author

Aristide Ruot, Ph.D.
Founder | Chief Executive Officer, Hectelion SA