Value a profitable startup in 2025: an exercise without model
In a post-hypercroissance market, the founders of self-funded startups come up against how much a profitable but not funded company is really worth?
Startups that do not raise funds are rarely valued. Not because they have less value, but because they do not go through the usual circuits that fix these values. In 2025, this paradox became particularly visible. Profitable companies, built without diluting their capital, are increasingly interested in investors, but lack benchmarks to frame the discussions.
“” There are few reference transactions. Bootstrappers rarely enter funds. It therefore becomes very difficult to find relevant valuations for everyone », Observes Jean-Louis Bénard, founder of Sociabble. Especially since it is difficult to develop general rules due to many disparities.
A jostled market, weakened benchmarks
For the past two years, the multiple valuation of financed startups have lowered in half. This correction highlighted the difference between projected valuation and real performance. For companies that have always worked on a profitable basis, this brutal fall makes comparisons even more difficult.
“” Bootstrap structures consume little cash, or even generate it. Opposite, funds are used to enhancing according to growth and cash burn. It is therefore necessary to find a balance on the multiple. »»
Traditional mechanics is based on the arr, the growth rate and, in some cases, profitability. But profitability, often marginal in VC models, has a greater weight in current discussions.
Transition benchmarks: € 1 million, € 5 million, € 10 million in round
The promotion of companies in SaaS is still largely based on their annual recurring turnover. The most used bearings are € 1 million, € 5 million, € 10 million, € 20 million and beyond. In principle, the higher the level of ARA, the more the multiple is too. A counterintuitive phenomenon, but which reflects the level of risk perceived.
In the consolidation phase, a € 1 million arr for slow growth and a clear margin can be valued between 1 and 3 times. On the other hand, a € 10 million arr, even with more modest growth, can justify a higher multiple (4 to 6x), due to the visibility and the robustness of the model.
“” These multiples were divided by two. It is not a bad thing, they were artificially high. We knew that it would be difficult to make exits at these levels », Notes Jean-Louis Bénard.
One equation with several unknowns
Current valuation models must integrate several dimensions:
- The level of round
- The annual growth rate (Yoy)
- The level of margin (Ebitda or Free Cash Flow)
- The net returned retention (NRR)
- The Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC)
- Average income by collaborator
But a deep change has made up in the analysis priorities. As Patrick Bertrand, COO of Holnest, points out, “we have gone from How much At how ». It is no longer just about growing, but understanding how This growth is produced:
“What matters is not your growth speed is the quality of your growth. »»
Moderate but profitable growth, with a controlled CAC and strong customer retention, can be worth more than a hypercroissance which massively consumes capital without visibility on balance. It is this logic that reintroduces the “Rule of 40”: sum of the growth rate and the EBITDA margin. A score greater than 40 % is perceived as a good signal.
Example: a startup displaying 25 % annual growth and 20 % EBITDA margin reaches a score of 45 %.
What a self -funded company is worth for an investor
The valuation logic is not based solely on the figures. It also integrates the nature of the deal. When an investor enters the capital of a business that does not need it, motivations are often mixed:
- Secure the founder by a partial cash-out
- Accelerate external growth
- Prepare a future sectoral build-up
- Structure governance and reporting for a scale-up
This is where family offices can play a unique role. “” The family office, by nature, is of entrepreneurial origin. He invests with an Evergreen horizon, with no pre-defined exit constraint. It is a form of long -term support “Explains Patrick Bertrand. “” And it is the school of rigor. Bringing people around you, it is accepting to account, to structure themselves»»
This dimension is essential for a company that has been built in autonomy, it transforms the investor into a growth partner, not an exit agent.
Value is arbitrating, not modeling
There is no universal grid to enhance a self -funded company. The market is too young, transactions too rare. It is an arbitration exercise between pragmatism, ambition, and strategic alignment.
When valuation becomes a tension point, some actors introduce corrective mechanisms such as the BSA Ratchet. They make it possible to adjust the value according to the realization of KPIS (growth, result, etc.). “” They are not systematically used, but they can avoid freezing a deal “Note Patrick Bertrand.
Another essential variable: the amount raised. “” It is sometimes better to lift € 1.2 million used than € 2 M € digested. The real challenge is to prove the market product, not to artificially reach a target valo ».
📈 Summary of observed benchmarks (profitable, self -funded SaaS)
| Arr (€) | Typical multiple (profitable) | Low growth (<20%) | Strong growth (> 40%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 M € | 1–3x | Low interest VC | Niche |
| 5 M € | 3–5X | Case of strategic buyout | A/B series possible |
| 10 M € | 4–6x | Build-up in sight | Strong tension on the valo |
| € 20 million and + | 6–9x | Pre-time or pe | Overall interest |
In a context where solid companies are becoming rare, bootstrappers occupy a new position. But this position implies being clear about what they want: long -term profitability, external growth, partial output? If it is difficult to establish general rules by the disparity of cases, one of the keys is that with which the deal could be done, between a fund of Private Equity and an industrialist, the valuation model can change significantly.
