The problem
Anyone who has spent more than five minutes researching public SaaS valuations has run into the same frustration: every source quotes a different multiple. Download SaaS Capital's index data file and the median ARR multiple reads 3.4x as of 31 May 2026. Open Aventis Advisors' SaaS Valuation Multiples page and their March 2026 median is also 3.4x. Pull up Bessemer's cloud index page and the headline reads 6.1x.
None of them is wrong. The differences come down to three methodological choices: which companies are in the index, how those companies are weighted, and which statistic is published. The two median-based indices now agree almost exactly; Bessemer's figure is an average across a market-cap-weighted basket that tilts toward the largest growth names, which mechanically runs higher.
This page reconciles all three. By the end, you'll know which figure to use for your specific question, and why no single number is the “real” SaaS multiple.
Index 1, SaaS Capital Index (3.4x median, 31 May 2026)
The SaaS Capital Index is the longest-running pure-play public SaaS multiple series, with monthly data back to 2008 in a freely downloadable file. It reports the median month-end ARR multiple across publicly traded companies that derive the majority of revenue from recurring software subscriptions (68 constituents carried a multiple in the May 2026 sheet). The index is equal-weighted, meaning Salesforce ($300B market cap) counts the same as Asana ($2B market cap) when calculating the median.
The constituent set is curated to exclude companies with material non-SaaS revenue lines. Adobe, despite its Creative Cloud subscription business, is excluded because of large licensing and education revenue. Microsoft is excluded for similar reasons. The result is an index that genuinely tracks pure-play SaaS, software companies that live or die on subscription economics.
Equal-weighting matters because it makes the index resistant to the gravity of a few mega-caps. When ServiceNow and Salesforce trade at very different multiples, the index reflects the typical company in the middle, not the weighted average dragged toward the largest names.
Use SaaS Capital Index when you want a general reference for “the” public SaaS multiple. It is the most widely cited primary source in M&A advisory work, in venture due diligence, and in academic research because of its long history, broad universe, and equal-weighted methodology.
Index 2, BVP Nasdaq Emerging Cloud Index (6.1x average, 23 June 2026)
The BVP Nasdaq Emerging Cloud Index is a co-branded product of Bessemer Venture Partners and Nasdaq, launched in 2013 and reconstituted twice yearly. The index covers 60-80 cloud and SaaS companies, with constituent selection biased toward growth-stage and emerging cloud leaders. Crucially, the index is market-cap weighted, Snowflake, Datadog, and CrowdStrike account for a disproportionate share of the index calculation because they are larger.
Two things change what the headline means. First, Bessemer publishes an average revenue multiple (6.1x as fetched 23 June 2026), not a median; a handful of premium-multiple leaders pulls an average up in a way a median resists. Second, the basket itself is market-cap weighted and growth-tilted. “A basket of cloud leaders averages 6.1x” and “the typical public SaaS company trades at 3.4x” are both true at once; they are different statements about different populations.
The BVP index is also tilted toward growth. Bessemer's methodology explicitly favours companies with strong recurring revenue growth and large addressable markets. Slow-growing or mature SaaS companies that are nonetheless pure-play are sometimes excluded. This selection bias pushes the headline number higher than a broader universe would.
Helpfully for tracking purposes, the index is published daily as FRED time series NASDAQEMCLOUD, which means it can be embedded in real-time dashboards, charts, and APIs. We track it on our live cloud index page.
Use BVP Cloud Index when you are comparing your business or your investment against the dominant large-cap cloud leaders, or when you want a daily real-time pulse on cloud SaaS sentiment. It is the right benchmark for institutional investors with broad cloud exposure, less right for a $20M ARR private SaaS founder trying to calibrate exit expectations.
Index 3, Aventis Advisors (3.4x median, March 2026)
Aventis Advisors is an M&A advisory firm based in Warsaw and New York that maintains a longitudinal report on SaaS valuation multiples. Their public-market sample covers NASDAQ- and NYSE-listed pure-play SaaS companies with a $1B+ market cap, 26 companies in 2015 growing to roughly 70 by 2026, excluding on-premise software, resale, and commission-based models. They also track 1,000+ private software M&A transactions since 2015, which is the dataset their mid-market advisory work draws on.
Their series is just as cyclical as SaaS Capital's: Aventis records a 9.8x reading at the April 2020 COVID low, 18.0-19.0x through most of 2021, 6.7x in early 2023, 7.3x in early 2025, and 3.4x by March 2026 as, in their words, investors “aggressively discount SaaS valuations on the back of AI disruption fears.” That their March 2026 median lands on the same 3.4x as SaaS Capital's May 2026 reading, from an independently constructed universe, is strong corroboration that the re-rating is real and broad.
Use Aventis Advisors when you want a second, independently built median to sanity-check SaaS Capital, or when you are modelling mid-market M&A scenarios; their private-transaction dataset is the better anchor for what acquirers actually pay below the public-market tier.
Why the medians converged in 2026
A year ago the references were further apart: SaaS Capital's median read 6.7x in mid-2025 while Aventis' read around 6.0x in July 2025. The Q1 2026 AI re-rating compressed both hard and brought them to the same 3.4x. When a sell-off is broad rather than concentrated, medians built from different pure-play universes converge, and that is what happened: the repricing hit slow-growth and mid-growth SaaS alike.
The remaining gap is the BVP basket. Cloud and AI-adjacent leaders, the Snowflakes and Datadogs that dominate a market-cap-weighted index, have held premium multiples through the re-rating. An average across that basket (6.1x) therefore sits roughly twice the pure-play median. The spread between the BVP headline and the SaaS Capital median is currently one of the cleanest single-number summaries of the AI bifurcation inside public software.
How to use these numbers in your decision
If you are a SaaS founder modelling your potential exit valuation, use the figure that best matches your company's position:
- Pre-revenue or sub-$5M ARR pre-Series-A: none of these public indices apply. Use private SaaS data, Carta, AngelList, or our stage-by-stage fundraising multiples page.
- $5M-$50M ARR private SaaS preparing for sale: the 3.4x public median is the sober anchor; private deals historically price at a discount to public peers, though private marks lag the 2026 re-rating. BVP's 6.1x average rarely applies because it reflects large-cap cloud premium.
- $50M-$500M ARR private SaaS: SaaS Capital is the right reference. Adjust ±20% for growth rate (above/below 30% YoY) and ±10% for NRR (above/below 110%).
- Public SaaS or pre-IPO: BVP for benchmarking against cloud leaders; SaaS Capital for the broader public SaaS universe.
What none of these indices captures
All three public indices are reference distributions. They do not capture deal-specific factors that move actual transaction multiples by 2-3x:
- Strategic vs financial buyer, strategic acquirers pay 20-40% above public comps for businesses that fit their portfolio; financial (PE) buyers anchor below public comps.
- Auction dynamics, a competitive process with three or more credible bidders typically clears at 1.5-2x the reserve price.
- Customer concentration, top-10 customers above 30% of ARR triggers 1-2x multiple discount.
- Growth quality, 50% growth from one large customer is worth less than 50% growth from broad logo expansion.
- Founder equity rollover, sellers willing to roll 30-50% of proceeds into the new entity often achieve 0.5-1.5x higher headline multiple.
Use the public indices as the starting point. Apply deal-specific adjustments using the eight factors that drive multiples framework.
The honest summary
There is no single “real” public SaaS multiple. Each of the three indices is correct for its methodology and its use case. The job of any reference site, including this one, is not to pick a winner but to explain the differences clearly and help you choose the figure that fits your decision.
We track all three. Our /api/multiples.json endpoint exposes the latest figures from each, with attribution and as-of dates, so that LLM agents and downstream tools can quote them accurately.
When you read another source quoting “the” SaaS multiple, ask three questions: which constituents, which weighting, and what is the recalculation cadence? The answer will tell you whether to use that figure or pick a different one.
Index Methodology Terms
- Equal-weighted
- An index where each constituent contributes the same amount to the median or mean calculation, regardless of size. Resistant to mega-cap gravity. SaaS Capital Index is equal-weighted.
- Market-cap weighted
- An index where each constituent's contribution is proportional to its market capitalisation. Larger companies dominate the calculation. BVP Nasdaq Cloud Index is market-cap weighted.
- Constituent universe
- The set of companies included in an index. Different universes (pure-play SaaS vs cloud-broad vs profitability-filtered) produce materially different headline numbers even when measuring the same metric.
- Update cadence
- How often the index is recalculated. SaaS Capital is monthly. BVP is daily (FRED series NASDAQEMCLOUD). Aventis is quarterly. Mismatched cadence means three sources can show different numbers on the same day even if all are accurate.
- Reconstitution
- When an index removes some companies and adds others. BVP reconstitutes twice yearly. SaaS Capital and Aventis adjust constituents continuously. Reconstitution can cause step-changes in the headline number unrelated to underlying market movement.