Does company size affect the multiple?
More than any other single factor, and it is the one claim in this field that replicates across four independent datasets on three continents. The reason is the buyer pool.
Yes, and this is the one claim about SME multiples that is genuinely well evidenced. Unlike most of what is written about value drivers, it replicates across datasets collected in completely different ways, in different countries.
The evidence
GF Data collects transactions confidentially from private equity buyers rather than from sellers' agents. Its cumulative figures through 2024, across 5,461 transactions:
| Enterprise value | Average EBITDA multiple |
|---|---|
| $10m – $25m | 5.9× |
| $25m – $50m | 6.7× |
| $50m – $100m | 7.7× |
| $100m – $250m | 8.5× |
| $250m – $500m | 9.9× |
Closer to home, Brookz surveys Dutch M&A advisors twice a year. In the first half of 2025 their reported averages ran from 3.5× at €200,000 of normalised EBITDA to 6.7× at €10m. The same gradient appears in UK data from BDO's index and in eurozone mid-market data from the Argos Index.
The reason is who is allowed to bid
| Earnings | Who buys | Effect on price |
|---|---|---|
| Under €250k | Individuals, own capital | Few bidders, price set by negotiation |
| €250k – €500k | Individuals with bank debt | Slightly deeper pool |
| €500k – €2M | Small funds, strategics, MBI teams | Competition begins |
| Above €2M | Private equity with a mandate | Competition sets the price |
That mechanism has support of its own. Pepperdine's 2025 survey of private capital markets found a shortage of available capital below $5m of EBITDA and a surplus from $10m upward, with senior debt notably harder to obtain below $10m. If the gap is largely a financing and competition gap, it is a property of who is bidding rather than of how well the business is run.
The honest caveat
None of these datasets controls for anything. Larger businesses differ from smaller ones in sector, accounting quality, management depth and buyer type all at once. So the defensible statement is that larger businesses transact at higher multiples, not that growing a given business raises its multiple.
That distinction matters practically. Growing from €400,000 to €600,000 of earnings is worth having regardless, because more earnings at the same multiple is already more money. Whether it also moves you into a band with more bidders is the part worth investigating for your specific sector and country, and it is the part nobody can quote you a reliable price for.
Size moves your multiple more than anything you control goes through all four datasets and explains why the stock market's small-cap premium should not be imported into this argument.
Sources
- GF Data (Association for Corporate Growth), cumulative average enterprise value to EBITDA multiples by size band through 2024, 5,461 transactions. https://middlemarketgrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/GF-Data-4th-Quarter-Highlights-and-Products.pdf
- Brookz Research, Overname Barometer H1-2025, Dutch SME multiples by normalised EBITDA. https://www.accountancyvanmorgen.nl/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/08/Brookz-Overname-Barometer-H1-2025.pdf
- Pepperdine Graziadio Business School, 2025 Private Capital Markets Report, on capital availability by EBITDA size, as summarised by Chinook Capital Advisors. https://chinookadvisors.com/news/top-5-takeaways-from-pepperdines-2025-ma-and-private-capital-markets-report/