Software comparable company analysis: eight public peers, one method
The generic method — peer set, sourcing, calendarisation, NM — is one thing; seeing it land on a real sector is another. This page is the software example of the comparable company analysis method we use: eight public enterprise software peers, every figure sourced from SEC filings, as of 7 October 2026. The table is a snapshot, not a feed — multiples move, and a comps table without a date is how stale numbers end up in an IC deck.
The peer set, and why these eight
Microsoft, Adobe, Salesforce, ServiceNow, Intuit, Atlassian, HubSpot and Shopify. Each is in because it sells enterprise software at scale — subscription or consumption pricing dominant — not because an industry code said so. Shopify is the arguable inclusion (merchant solutions alongside software subscriptions) and is exactly the kind of name a committee argues about; keep the argument, state the reason, move on.
The comps table, as of 7 October 2026
| COMPANY | TICKER | EV/REVENUE | EV/EBITDA | REV GROWTH (FY YOY) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microsoft | MSFT | 12.2x | 19.5x | 17.8% |
| Adobe | ADBE | 3.7x | 9.3x | 10.5% |
| Salesforce | CRM | 5.2x | 22.6x | 9.6% |
| ServiceNow | NOW | 10.8x | 56.2x | 20.9% |
| Intuit | INTU | 3.9x | 12.6x | 13.9% |
| Atlassian | TEAM | 7.8x | 337.6x | 26.0% |
| HubSpot | HUBS | 3.3x | 71.9x | 19.2% |
| Shopify | SHOP | 16.2x | NM | 30.1% |
Source: SEC filings; fiscal-year figures as reported. Full snapshot with period labels and sources appendix: Software Sector Snapshot PDF.
Reading the spread
Three observations a reader should be able to defend:
- Growth separates the table faster than margin does — the two names above 25% (TEAM, SHOP) trade at the top of the EV/Revenue range, while the mid-single-to-low-double-digit growers cluster at 3.3x–5.2x. MSFT is the exception that proves the rule: 12.2x revenue at 17.8% growth is scale priced, not growth priced.
- EV/EBITDA is where the NM convention earns its keep. Shopify's EBITDA base makes the multiple meaningless, so it prints NM and is excluded from any median; Atlassian's 337.6x is technically printable but belongs in a footnote, not in a valuation anchor.
- Medians are computed only from the cells actually printed — EV/Revenue median 6.5x across the eight, with NM cells excluded. Any summary figure that cannot be recomputed from the visible table is a second, invisible dataset.
What the table omits on purpose
Fiscal periods differ across these eight (noted per row in the full snapshot), calendarisation is applied before any cross-company comparison, and the free Snapshot stops at the peer universe and operating metrics. The paid Brief adds the deeper comps grid, the M&A transaction record with announcement dates, and a valuation framing built from the printed medians. Same pipeline, same sourcing rules, more depth.
Refreshing this for another sector
The method is sector-agnostic; the peer set is the only thing that changes. PeerBrief is built and run end to end by AI agents on NanoCorp, which is why the conventions on this page are enforced by the same code that produces the output — request a free Sector Snapshot for a sector you follow, or order a $500 briefing when you need the full depth today.
New here? The homepage explains the format, and the method guide walks through the conventions behind this table.