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

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

Valuing a software asset costs, in France and Switzerland in 2026, between EUR 6,000 and 15,000 (CHF 8,000 to 18,000) for an indicative estimate without a code audit, between EUR 15,000 and 35,000 (CHF 18,000 to 40,000) for a defensible report drawing on several methods, and from EUR 35,000 (CHF 40,000), with no fixed ceiling, for a complex software portfolio or an intragroup transfer pricing file. These ranges increasingly concern executives: business software publishers, industrial companies capitalizing their in-house development, and investment funds structuring a fundraising round or a partial sale. Software indeed occupies a distinctive place among intangible assets: unlike a brand or a patent, it combines a copyright protecting the expression of the code, a strong dependence on the human capital that wrote it, and an increasingly short technology life cycle.

An intangible asset is defined, under international accounting standards, as an identifiable asset without physical substance that provides future economic benefits to the entity that controls it. Software is a direct illustration of this: whether sold under license, used in-house to make an industrial process more reliable, or licensed to an academic or technology partner, its value is neither its historical development cost nor the volume of code lines written.

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

Three factors are converging in 2026 to make this pricing question more pressing.

First, the spread of generative artificial intelligence tools reduces the cost and time needed to reproduce a piece of software, which directly disrupts methods based on replacement cost and requires more careful documentation of the technological obsolescence factor applied. Second, technology fundraising rounds and partial sales of software publishers are multiplying on both sides of the border, requiring the software's value to be isolated from the rest of the balance sheet in order to document a purchase price allocation or a defensible pre-money valuation.

Third, tax authorities and courts, in both France and Switzerland, are scrutinizing intragroup royalties and in-kind contributions involving software assets with growing vigilance, which makes a simple internal opinion insufficient in most transactional or contentious cases.

This article details the price ranges observed in 2026, the factors that move an engagement's budget, billing arrangements, how a valuation unfolds in practice, the options available on the market, the levers for controlling cost without sacrificing the report's defensibility, the trends shaping 2026, the costliest mistakes, priced case studies built from observed market practice, and a FAQ covering the ten questions most frequently asked by executives and their advisors. One distinction should be made upfront: this article covers software in the broad sense (licensed, proprietary, developed in-house), excluding the subscription-based SaaS model, whose pricing mechanics and ranges differ significantly and are covered in our dedicated article on software and SaaS valuation.

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

The table below summarizes the three service tiers Hectelion observes for software valuation engagements in France and Switzerland. In practice, a given piece of software often lands in the upper part of each tier, and can even exceed the complex-portfolio tier once a technical source code audit becomes necessary, an item not included by default in the ranges below.

Indicative ranges, Hectelion's practice, 2026. Amounts exclusive of tax, excluding the cost of any technical source code audit subcontracted to a third-party expert. The upper end of each tier most often applies when the software has several modules, documented technical debt, or a transactional use case (fundraising, sale, litigation).

Get an objective budget for your software valuation engagement

Before detailing the factors that move these ranges, the fastest way to get a precise figure remains a direct conversation with a practitioner about your software's exact scope, its context of use, and the purpose of the engagement (transaction, succession, in-kind contribution, litigation). Book a call with Hectelion, thirty minutes, confidential, to scope your budget and expected timeline before committing.

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

Before going into the detail of the price drivers, Hectelion has built Acontos, an online audit, due diligence and business valuation tool, powered by Anthropic's Claude Sonnet 5 artificial intelligence and calibrated on Hectelion's own methodology. From your accounts, it produces a first estimate of the value of your shares within minutes, free of charge and without retaining any document, useful when your software represents a significant share of your balance sheet.

Launch the valuation simulator to get an order of magnitude, then keep reading to understand what specifically determines the price of a software valuation.

What drives the price: scope, method, and context

• The software's technical scope weighs directly on the budget. A monolithic piece of software, well documented and maintained by a stable team, costs less to analyze than a set of interconnected modules, built by successive teams, with undocumented technical debt.
• The availability and quality of data shape the length of the engagement: development history (timesheets, developer and contractor agreements), technical documentation, existing license agreements, and revenue attributable to the software when it generates revenue directly. The more structured these elements are, the closer the budget sits to the lower end of the range.
• The purpose of the engagement determines the level of rigor expected: an indicative estimate meant to inform an internal discussion does not call for the same degree of robustness as a defensible report produced for a bank, a court, or the tax authorities.
• The number of methods used mechanically affects the fee: a defensible valuation generally cross-checks at least two approaches among replacement cost, relief from royalty, and the multi-period excess earnings method (MEEM), which multiplies the time spent on analysis and drafting.
• Whether or not a technical source code audit is required, often subcontracted by the valuation firm to an independent third-party technical expert, adds a separate budget line, particularly for mission-critical software or for a transaction where the buyer requires a technical debt review.
• The French-Swiss cross-border context adds a dimension: a file that involves an intragroup transfer price between a French entity and a Swiss entity requires a more extensive DEMPE functional analysis, which naturally pushes the engagement toward the complex-portfolio tier.

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

In practice, the vast majority of software valuation engagements are billed as a fixed fee, based on an engagement letter that precisely defines the scope, the methods used, the format of the deliverable, and the timeline.

The fixed fee gives the client full budget visibility and holds the firm accountable for meeting the announced deadline. Time-and-materials billing, at a daily rate, remains reserved for particular situations: an engagement whose scope evolves along the way (discovery of a dispute over ownership of rights, extension to a second piece of software), ongoing support as part of a broader financial due diligence, or an iterative review of a financial model provided by the client. In all cases, a deposit is generally requested when the engagement letter is signed, with the balance billed upon delivery of the report. Fees for valuing software developed in-house are, as a general rule, deductible from taxable income as a business expense when incurred in the company's interest, subject to the position taken by the company's accountant on the nature of the expense.

Process and timeline: the steps of a software valuation

1. A scoping interview, generally under an hour: clarifying the software's scope, the purpose of the valuation, and the available documents.
2. Documentation gathering, one to two weeks on average depending on the availability of the client's technical and financial contacts: developer employment and service agreements, technical and functional documentation, development cost history, existing license or maintenance agreements, and annual accounts for recent years.
3. The analysis itself, one to two additional weeks for an indicative valuation or three to five weeks for a defensible multi-method report: a qualitative assessment of the software (architecture, scalability, technical debt, key-person dependency), selection and application of the valuation methods, then cross-checking of the results obtained, particularly when a technical source code audit needs to be coordinated with a third-party expert.
4. Delivery of a written report, followed, where relevant, by an oral presentation to management, the board of directors, or the investors concerned.

In total, an indicative valuation is completed in two to four weeks, a defensible report in four to eight weeks, and a complex portfolio file in eight to fourteen weeks, in line with the timelines shown in the summary table.

Comparing options: Big Four firms, boutiques, and accountants

Several categories of providers operate in the software valuation market, each with legitimate use cases.

Big Four and Comparable Networks: they have teams dedicated to intangible assets and typically work on large files, listed groups, or complex cross-border transactions spanning several jurisdictions. Their cost structure and internal quality-control processes generally translate into fees positioned at the upper end of market ranges.

Independent Boutique Firms: positioned on mid-sized transactions, they combine comparable technical expertise on recognized methods (IVSC, IFRS) with a lighter structure and often greater partner availability on the file, which explains fees closer to the middle, or even the lower end, of the ranges presented above.

Accounting Firms: the company's own accountant knows the company's accounts thoroughly and can produce a useful first estimate for internal use or a preliminary discussion; their involvement, however, reaches its limits once the report must be defensible before a third party (bank, investor, tax authorities, court), an exercise that requires independence from the bookkeeping engagement and a thorough command of intangible asset valuation methods.

The choice between these options therefore depends less on a hierarchy of quality than on the fit between the size of the stakes, the degree of defensibility sought, and the available budget.

Technical debt and obsolescence: an often overlooked price factor

One factor frequently goes unnoticed during initial budget scoping: the technical debt the software has accumulated, that is, the gap between the code's actual state and the state a clean, documented architecture would require.

Software built on a framework that has become obsolete, lacking automated tests, or whose institutional knowledge rests on one or two key developers with no transferable documentation, cannot be valued like a technically sound equivalent asset. In concrete terms, this technical debt adds to the engagement's fee on two levels: it lengthens the qualitative assessment time needed to document it precisely, and it justifies a higher economic obsolescence factor in the replacement cost method, which reduces the net value retained accordingly.

On the accounting side, the Swiss Swiss GAAP FER 10 standard on intangible fixed assets explicitly requires this functional impairment to be documented when software development costs have been capitalized on the balance sheet, a requirement that aligns in substance with the ANC's rules in France. An executive who presents an honest map of their technical debt as early as the scoping stage, rather than letting it be discovered during the analysis, generally avoids an upward revision of the initial engagement fee.

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

The ranges presented in this article reflect the market practice Hectelion observes on its software valuation engagements conducted in France and Switzerland in 2026.

They constitute neither an official fee schedule nor an automatic contractual commitment: each engagement is priced after a scoping interview that takes into account the software's actual scope, the volume of available documentation, the number of methods to be applied, and the degree of urgency of the file. Hectelion applies the same level of methodological rigor, aligned with IVSC standards and with AMF and SIX market practice, regardless of the size of the engagement, which explains why fees generally sit in the upper half of market ranges for a defensible report, in exchange for a report directly defensible before a third party.

This transparency on the status of the figures, either sourced or explicitly described as observed and dated practice, lets executives objectively compare the proposals they receive before committing.

How to reduce the cost without losing defensibility

• Preparing structured technical and financial documentation upfront (development cost history, developer agreements, up-to-date functional documentation) significantly reduces the collection time billed by the valuer.
• Precisely defining the scope of the valuation as early as the engagement letter, for instance excluding non-strategic modules or modules being phased out, avoids paying for a broader analysis than necessary.
• Choosing the right service level from the outset: an indicative estimate is largely sufficient to inform an internal decision or an initial shareholder discussion, whereas a defensible report is only warranted if a third party (bank, investor, tax authority, court) needs to rely on it.
• Anticipating the question of the technical source code audit upfront, entrusting it if necessary to a technical provider chosen directly by the client rather than letting the valuation firm subcontract it under time pressure, often helps control this separate cost item.
• Grouping several related needs into a single engagement, for example a software valuation combined with a review of other intangible assets as part of a purchase price allocation, allows part of the data-gathering and market-analysis work to be shared, thereby reducing the marginal cost of each asset valued.
• Using Acontos for a first free scoping estimate before committing to the formal engagement helps anticipate the order of magnitude and decide faster between service tiers.
• For a file involving both France and Switzerland, mandating a single firm that natively covers both legal frameworks avoids paying two separate providers and duplicating part of the analysis.

2026 trends: artificial intelligence and software intellectual property

Generative artificial intelligence continues to reshape the economics of software development, and therefore its valuation, in depth.

The ability to produce functional code faster and at lower cost reduces the scarcity of code as such, which pushes the replacement cost method to incorporate a higher obsolescence factor than a few years ago, as detailed in our reference article on software and SaaS valuation. At the same time, value is shifting toward what artificial intelligence does not easily replicate: exclusive proprietary data, an integration ecosystem that is hard to reproduce, a captive customer base, and proven commercial execution.

This shift makes rigorous qualitative assessment work all the more necessary before any financial modeling, particularly when the software is set to become the central asset of a future startup valuation. Moreover, the share of software intellectual property in fundraising rounds and technology sales keeps growing, in both France and Switzerland: investors and buyers increasingly require a separate valuation of the software, distinct from residual goodwill, to document the purchase price allocation and secure the accounting treatment of the transaction under IFRS or the applicable Swiss standards.

Finally, intragroup transfer pricing questions involving software technologies are intensifying under the OECD's BEPS project, which requires a documented DEMPE functional analysis (development, enhancement, maintenance, protection, exploitation) to justify an intragroup royalty.

In-house proprietary software vs. third-party licensed software: two scopes, two methods

Not all software valuation engagements involve the same legal object, and this distinction directly changes the method and the price. When the company fully owns the code, developed by its own teams or by a provider who has fully assigned its rights, the valuer values the software asset itself, using replacement cost or relief from royalty depending on the case. The situation differs when the company operates software under a third-party license, a white-labeled ERP module, a component integrated under an exclusive or non-exclusive license from an external publisher: in that case, it is not the code that is valued, since the company does not own it, but the right of use attached to the license agreement, its remaining term, whether it is exclusive, and the gap between the contractual royalty paid and the market rate observed for an equivalent right. This second configuration, more common than one might think among industrial groups that have outsourced a strategic software component, calls for a careful contractual analysis before any financial calculation, and can, in an intragroup context, connect directly to the DEMPE question discussed above if the license right is itself transferred between group entities.

Process and timeline: from scoping to the valuation report

1. Signing the engagement letter, which sets the software's scope, the methods used, and the timeline.
2. The client sending the technical and financial documentation (developer agreements, cost history, annual accounts, license agreements).
3. A Q&A exchange with the technical and financial teams to clarify incomplete documentary points.
4. Drafting a preliminary report presenting the methods used and the indicative value obtained.
5. Presenting and discussing the draft with management, investors, or the board of directors.
6. Incorporating the corrections and clarifications requested following this discussion.
7. Delivering the final valuation report, within the timeline announced at scoping.

This final report then serves as a reference document just as much for a fundraising round or a sale as for documenting a purchase price allocation (PPA) or a dispute between shareholders or with a technology partner.

Comparing providers: Big Four firms, boutique firms, online platforms

Three categories of providers compete today for software valuation mandates in France and Switzerland: large audit firms (the Big Four and comparable networks), independent boutique firms, and online platforms that offer an automated estimate based on a questionnaire, with no conversation with a practitioner. Each meets a different need, but not all are suited to a report intended for review by a third party.

Why choose Hectelion among these categories? Eight concrete points set Hectelion apart from other providers:

• A founder's experience, not just an analyst's: Aristide Ruot has himself founded and run companies, negotiated funding rounds, and absorbed cash-flow strain; when faced with software a client's business depends on, this first-hand experience of entrepreneurial risk carries more weight than a purely academic reading of the code and the accounts.
• Fees proportionate to the actual file: the engagement is priced according to the software's actual scope, number of modules, technical debt, possible code audit, rather than a standard rate applied regardless of the assignment.
• A software methodology led by a Ph.D. in the field: replacement cost, relief from royalty, and discounted attributable cash flows are handled directly by Aristide Ruot, Ph.D., rather than assigned to a junior associate discovering the subject.
• One point of contact from scoping to closing: software valuation, technical due diligence, fundraising structuring, and financial instrument structuring remain handled by the same team, without splitting the file across several firms.
• The rigor of a large firm, without its layered costs: IVSC standards and the methodological rigor expected of a Big Four apply to the report, without the hierarchical layers that lengthen its timeline and price.
• Two legal frameworks mastered under one roof: French intellectual property and tax law on one side, Swiss copyright law and accounting standards on the other, are handled directly, without adding a local correspondent for the cross-border component.
• No conflicting interest with a fund or an intermediary: Hectelion receives no commission or compensation from an investor or a financial intermediary, which leaves the software's value alone to dictate the report's conclusion.
• A timeline announced and honored: an immediate first order of magnitude via Acontos, then a formal report delivered within the timeline set at the scoping interview, with no slippage from a code audit discovered along the way.

One word of caution: before mandating a provider, verify that they are neither a party to the transaction concerned nor paid by one of the parties (seller, investor, lending bank); it is this distance from the transaction that gives the report its evidentiary weight when a third party reviews it.

The 5 mistakes that cost the most

Mistake 1: Confusing development cost with economic value

Adding up developers' fully loaded salaries and external service costs gives an order of magnitude for historical cost, not a defensible economic value. This confusion often leads to estimates disconnected from the market, in either direction, and undermines the report's credibility with a third party.

Mistake 2: Overlooking legal ownership of the rights

Software developed by an independent contractor without a clear rights-assignment clause, or incorporating open source components under a copyleft license, can have its economic value challenged at the exact moment it matters most, during a sale or a fundraising round. Verifying the chain of ownership upfront avoids a costly discovery in the middle of a negotiation.

Mistake 3: Choosing a single method with no consistency check

Relying exclusively on replacement cost, without cross-checking it against a relief-from-royalty test or an attributable-income test when the data allows it, leaves the report without a methodological safety net. A knowledgeable third party will systematically ask why only one approach was used.

Mistake 4: Ignoring the technological obsolescence accelerated by AI

Applying an obsolescence factor calibrated on practices from five years ago underestimates how quickly certain software components can be replicated today. Conversely, applying a uniform discount to all software without distinguishing those built on proprietary data or a solid ecosystem ends up undervaluing the most differentiated assets.

Mistake 5: Underestimating the cost and time of a technical code audit

Discovering mid-engagement that a technical source code audit is essential, without having anticipated it in the budget or the timeline, delays delivery of the report and can significantly increase the final bill. This point deserves to be put on the table as early as the scoping interview.

Case 1: Valuing a B2B business software publisher's software ahead of a funding round

Case built for illustrative purposes, based on observed market practice.‍

Company X, a French company based in Lyon, publishes a computerized maintenance management software for industrial sites, sold under a perpetual license with an annual maintenance contract, outside the subscription-based SaaS model.

The company generated revenue of EUR 4,200,000 in 2025 and employs 38 people, including 9 senior developers who have worked on the software's core for six years. A sector-focused fund is about to take a 22% stake as part of a funding round, and the shareholders' agreement requires the software's value to be isolated from the rest of the balance sheet in order to document the pre-money valuation and the allocation between the identifiable software asset and residual goodwill.

Since the software is sold as a package with maintenance and configuration, with no separate, easily isolable external royalty, Hectelion uses the replacement cost method as the primary approach. The gross reproduction cost is estimated from the developers' average fully loaded cost (EUR 88,000 per year), their tenure on the project (six years), and an average allocation rate of 70% of their time to developing the core software, coming to approximately EUR 3,300,000. An economic and functional obsolescence factor of 30%, reflecting the faster pace of innovation enabled by artificial intelligence and the need to rewrite certain legacy modules, brings the net replacement value down to approximately EUR 2,300,000.

This estimate is then cross-checked against a relief from royalty test: on license revenue attributable to the software of EUR 2,600,000, a royalty rate of 8% (the upper end of the range observed for a differentiated business software product), a remaining economic life of ten years, and a discount rate of 12% reflecting the specific risk of an unlisted technology SME, the discounted royalty savings after corporate income tax (25%), increased by the tax benefit of amortization, come to approximately EUR 1,230,000.

The gap between the two approaches is explained by the fact that the relief-from-royalty test only captures the directly identifiable license revenue, without valuing the software's strategic and defensive role in the business model. Hectelion ultimately retains a software value of between EUR 1,800,000 and 2,300,000, with a documented midpoint of EUR 2,000,000 for cap table purposes; fees for this defensible valuation engagement came to EUR 26,000 excluding tax, over a six-week timeline.

Case 2: Swiss industrial software portfolio, a transfer pricing file at CHF 58,000

Case built for illustrative purposes, based on observed market practice.‍

Company Y, an industrial automation group based in German-speaking Switzerland, developed three distinct software modules in-house, a production planning module, a predictive maintenance module, and a quality traceability module, initially designed by the group's Swiss entity but now also operated by its French subsidiary. This dual use requires documenting a defensible intragroup license royalty, as part of a transfer pricing file covering the three modules.

Hectelion applies the replacement cost method to each of the three modules, with a differentiated obsolescence factor depending on the age and degree of technical debt of each module, supplemented by a DEMPE analysis documenting the allocation of development and maintenance functions between the group's two entities. The engagement is priced at CHF 58,000, within the complex software portfolio tier, due to the three modules to be valued separately and the French-Swiss tax coordination.

The engagement runs over thirteen weeks, including a joint review with both entities' tax advisors before the intragroup royalty rate is set.

A word from our founder

"The price of a software valuation often intrigues executives, less for its amount than for what it covers. A CHF 8,000 engagement and a CHF 35,000 engagement don't pay for the same thing: one uses a single method to inform an internal decision, the other cross-checks several approaches to produce a report the bank, the investor, or the court can examine line by line."

"We regularly see, on our French-Swiss engagements, that software is the intangible asset most poorly understood by internal finance teams. It doesn't quite behave like a brand, whose value rests on customer recognition, nor quite like a patent, protected by a time-limited exploitation monopoly. Its value depends on a more fragile balance between the copyright that protects it, the people who maintain it, and the market that adopts it."

"Our conviction at Hectelion is that a software valuation engagement should always be legible before it's signed: which method, what scope, what timeline, and above all what level of defensibility the final report will achieve. It's this transparency, more than the amount itself, that sets a well-scoped engagement apart from a surprise bill."

Aristide Ruot, Ph.D.
Founder | CEO, Hectelion SA

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

Introduction: what to know before the questions

The ten questions below cover the most frequent concerns raised with Hectelion by executives, CFOs, and their advisors before engaging a software valuation in France or Switzerland.

Q1: How much does a software valuation cost?

In 2026, an indicative valuation without a code audit costs between EUR 6,000 and 15,000 (CHF 8,000 to 18,000), a defensible multi-method report between EUR 15,000 and 35,000 (CHF 18,000 to 40,000), and a complex software portfolio from EUR 35,000 (CHF 40,000), with no fixed ceiling.

Q2: What's the price difference between valuing software and valuing SaaS?

Software sold under a perpetual license or developed in-house is most often valued using replacement cost or relief from royalty, whereas subscription-based SaaS relies more on the income approach (ARR multiples, MEEM), which shifts the price drivers toward churn and recurrence analysis. Our dedicated article on software and SaaS valuation details this methodological distinction.

Q3: Who pays for the valuation in a negotiation between a publisher and a partner?

As a general rule, the party that most needs to objectively document the value to secure its position (the seller in a sale, the publisher in a royalty negotiation, the target company in a funding round) commissions and pays for the valuation. Parties sometimes split the cost when the report is meant to serve as a common basis for the negotiation.

Q4: Can the fees for a software valuation be negotiated?

Yes, to some extent. The engagement's exact scope, the number of methods used, and the level of documentation preparation the client provides upfront are the most effective levers for adjusting the engagement fee, more so than simply negotiating the hourly rate or the posted fixed fee.

Q5: Are software valuation fees tax-deductible?

As a general rule, yes, when the expense is incurred in the company's interest (fundraising, sale, litigation, in-kind contribution), subject to the classification adopted by the company's accountant, in both France and Switzerland.

Q6: Is a source code audit needed in addition to the financial valuation?

Not systematically. A technical source code audit, generally subcontracted by the valuation firm to an independent third-party expert, becomes necessary when the buyer or investor wants to precisely document the software's technical debt, application security, or scalability, particularly for a complex software portfolio.

Q7: Which method should be chosen for in-house developed software?

When the software is used internally with no identifiable direct revenue, replacement cost generally serves as the primary method. When it is licensed to third parties, the relief from royalty method becomes relevant. When it generates clearly identifiable customer revenue of its own, the multi-period excess earnings method (MEEM) is best suited.

Q8: How long does it take to get a software valuation report?

Plan on two to four weeks for an indicative valuation, four to eight weeks for a defensible report, and eight to fourteen weeks for a complex software portfolio, depending on the availability of documentation and whether a technical code audit is required.

Q9: Is a valuation performed in France valid in Switzerland, and vice versa?

The methodological principles (IVSC, cost, market, and income approaches) are common to both countries, but the legal framework governing ownership of rights (the Intellectual Property Code in France, the Federal Act on Copyright in Switzerland) and the applicable accounting framework differ. A report intended for cross-border use must expressly address both frameworks.

Q10: When should software be valued?

The most frequent triggers are a funding round, a sale or acquisition, an in-kind contribution, an intragroup restructuring with a transfer pricing issue, a dispute between shareholders or with a technology partner, and an accounting impairment test when the software is recorded as an asset on the balance sheet.

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

To take this further with a concrete figure, Hectelion offers Acontos, its online audit, due diligence and business valuation tool. Powered by Anthropic's Claude Sonnet 5 artificial intelligence and calibrated on Hectelion's own methodology, it reads your accounts, normalizes EBITDA, applies real sector multiples, and reconstructs a net debt bridge to estimate the value of your shares within minutes, including when in-house developed software represents a significant share of your assets. Launch the valuation simulator for free: the tool is confidential, retains no document, and does not replace a formal software valuation, but it gives a reliable first order of magnitude before discussing it with our team.

Conclusion: a price that reflects the method, not the size of the code

The price of a software valuation in 2026 is read first through the level of defensibility sought: an indicative estimate between EUR 6,000 and 15,000 (CHF 8,000 to 18,000) is enough to inform an internal decision, while a defensible report between EUR 15,000 and 35,000 (CHF 18,000 to 40,000) becomes necessary as soon as a third party, bank, investor, tax authority, or court, needs to be able to rely on the conclusions.

The complex software portfolio tier, from EUR 35,000 (CHF 40,000) with no fixed ceiling, concerns publishers and industrial groups whose software comprises several modules or falls within an intragroup transfer pricing file.

In a context where artificial intelligence reduces the scarcity of code and shifts value toward data, ecosystem, and commercial execution, choosing the right method, replacement cost, relief from royalty, or MEEM depending on the software's profile, matters more than the raw fee amount.

A clearly priced engagement, one that explains the scope, the method, and the timeline, remains the best indicator of the quality of the report to come. To go further on your company's overall valuation, Hectelion's business valuation service accounts for software as a component of the shares' overall value.

Article summary

A software valuation costs, in 2026, between EUR 6,000 and 15,000 (CHF 8,000 to 18,000) for an indicative estimate, between EUR 15,000 and 35,000 (CHF 18,000 to 40,000) for a defensible report, and from EUR 35,000 (CHF 40,000) for a complex software portfolio, with the technical source code audit forming a separate cost not included by default. The price varies mainly with the software's technical scope, the quality of available documentation, the purpose of the engagement, the number of methods used, and any French-Swiss cross-border dimension to the file.

Three methods structure the practice: replacement cost for in-house software with no identifiable direct revenue, relief from royalty when it is licensed to third parties, and the multi-period excess earnings method (MEEM) when it generates customer revenue of its own. The two priced case studies presented illustrate how these methods combine and cross-check each other, in a fundraising context and in an intragroup transfer pricing context respectively.

This article covers software in the broad sense, excluding the subscription-based SaaS model, whose specifics are developed in our reference article on software and SaaS valuation. To precisely scope your engagement's budget, a direct conversation with a practitioner remains the most reliable approach.

Sources

• French Accounting Standards Authority (ANC), regulation on intangible assets and capitalized development costs
• EXPERTsuisse, professional standards applicable to business and intangible asset valuation
• Swiss GAAP FER Foundation, Swiss GAAP FER 10 standard on intangible fixed assets
• IFRS Foundation, IAS 38, Intangible Assets, section on internally developed software
• International Valuation Standards Council (IVSC), International Valuation Standards
• Légifrance, French Intellectual Property Code, software protection
• OECD, BEPS project and DEMPE analysis of intangible assets

Author

Aristide Ruot, Ph.D.
Founder | CEO, Hectelion SA