COMPARE METHODS
Compare trading and transaction evidence on one target
Trading comparables observe public-company pricing; precedents observe acquisition transactions. Different evidence sets can imply different values for the same target. Align the target metric and value basis before interpreting the difference.
| Observation set | EV/EBITDA | Median EV | Median Equity Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trading peers | 7 / 8 / 9× | 160 | 130 |
| Acquisition precedents | 9 / 10 / 11× | 200 | 170 |
On this page
Align denominators and disclose observation dates
The synthetic comparison values the same target at 2026-12-31 using 2027 forecast EBITDA of EUR 20 and net debt EUR 30. Trading peer observations are a supplied year-end snapshot; acquisition observations are dated 2026-06-30. Their EV/EBITDA denominators use the stated LTM convention. The target forecast period and peer observation periods are disclosed separately.
Both methods use the same target period, definition of EBITDA and EV basis. Older deal dates remain older; labeling the comparison with one valuation date does not turn them into current market quotes. Before real use, reconcile accounting, leases, one-offs, cyclicality and control/synergy context.
Reconcile both native ranges on the Football Field basis
Trading observations 7 / 8 / 9× have median 8×. The target gives EV 160 and Equity Value 130. Precedents 9 / 10 / 11× have median 10×, giving EV 200 and Equity Value 170. The same EUR 30 net debt is subtracted exactly once from each Enterprise Value.
The native interquartile ranges are 7.5–8.5× for Trading Comps and 9.5–10.5× for Precedents. Thus the Football Field can compare EV 150–170 with 190–210, or Equity Value 120–140 with 160–180. Do not put one method’s EV range beside the other’s Equity range.
| Method and basis | P25 | Median | P75 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trading · EV | 150 | 160 | 170 |
| Precedents · EV | 190 | 200 | 210 |
| Trading · Equity | 120 | 130 | 140 |
| Precedents · Equity | 160 | 170 | 180 |
The difference is not automatically a control premium
EV 200 is 25% above EV 160. That arithmetic is correct, but these are different observation sets rather than paired prices for the same company before and after acquisition. Selection, timing, growth, profitability, control rights and expected synergies may all differ. The 25% is therefore not an isolated observed control premium.
Do not add another 25% to the transaction-derived EV as if it were missing. Nor does subtracting net debt make the percentage difference identical on an Equity basis: 170 versus 130 is about 30.7692%. Both differences need economic interpretation.
Choose evidence; do not average away disagreements
Use trading evidence when public peers are economically comparable and the measurement date is relevant. Use transaction evidence when acquisition context and disclosed terms are informative. Neither set automatically dominates; a larger sample may also contain less comparable observations.
The native example uses only synthetic observations entered by the user. There is no market feed or private deal database. Inspect both tables, their chosen metric/period and the Football Field basis; explain differences instead of producing an unsupported blended valuation.
Related decisions and model reference
For adjacent questions: Valuation Methods — Choose DCF, Comps or Precedents; Trading Comparables & Comparable Company Analysis; Precedent Transactions Analysis; Football Field Valuation Chart.
For the exact controls and source behavior, use Trading Comparables and Precedent Transactions.
Sources and conventions
Synthetic examples. Model-based results were reconciled with the current BalanceCheat calculations; assumptions, units and boundaries are specified in each example.