EBITDA multiples in M&A – what is a company worth?
This is one of the most common questions owners ask when considering a sale. The EV/EBITDA multiple really is one of the key reference points in M&A – but applying a single figure, 5x, 7x or 10x, to every company is a mistake.
In the second half of 2025, the average EV/EBITDA multiple in the CEE market stood at around 5.3x. That single figure hides very large differences. According to Dealsuite, the average for Healthcare & Pharmaceuticals was 7.6x, Software Development 6.9x, IT Services 6.1x, Industrial & Manufacturing 5.3x, and Construction & Engineering around 4.0x.
7.6x
6.9x
6.1x
5.8x
5.4x
5.3x
5.3x
5.2x
4.6x
4.4x
4.3x
4.0x
4.0x
What does the EV/EBITDA multiple actually mean?
If a company generates PLN 4m of normalised EBITDA and the market benchmark for comparable businesses is a 6x multiple, a simple application of the benchmark gives PLN 24m of Enterprise Value.
Enterprise Value is not, however, the same as the amount the owner actually receives. Getting from enterprise value to equity value requires accounting for debt, cash, and the agreed level of working capital. Part of the price in a transaction may also depend on an earn-out, a share rollover, or other structural elements.
Industry matters
A multiple is, in simplified terms, the price an investor is willing to pay per unit of operating profit. The more predictable, scalable and resilient future cash flows are, the higher a multiple can be justified. That is why the market typically pays more for companies with high barriers to entry, recurring revenue and good growth prospects, and less for cyclical, capital-intensive businesses dependent on a handful of people or clients.
CEE data illustrate this gap well. Software Development and Healthcare sit well above the average, while retail trade, construction and hospitality land at lower levels. That does not mean every software company is worth more than every manufacturing company – the quality of the specific business still comes before its sector label.
Company size can shift the multiple by several turns
One of the strongest and most frequently underestimated factors is scale. Dealsuite reports an average CEE multiple of around 4.1x for companies with €0.2m EBITDA and around 6.7x for companies with €10m EBITDA. Between those two points sits a clear size premium.
The reason is economic. A larger company is usually less dependent on a single client, supplier or employee, has a more developed management team, easier access to financing, and can attract interest from a wider range of funds and strategic investors. Competition among buyers further supports the price.
That is why the owner of a company with €1m EBITDA should not mechanically apply a multiple from a deal involving a business generating €20m EBITDA.
Normalised EBITDA matters more than the EBITDA on the P&L
In a transaction, a buyer typically analyses the earnings level sustainable after the acquisition, not merely historical accounting profit. This is the concept of normalised EBITDA.
Typical adjustments may include one-off costs, expenses unrelated to operations, owner compensation that diverges from market rates, costs tied to an extraordinary project, or lasting savings already implemented before the transaction. Every adjustment, however, must be defensible in due diligence.
If the seller presents EBITDA of PLN 8m but the buyer treats only PLN 6m as recurring, the price gap at a 6x multiple is PLN 12m.
What raises the multiple
What lowers the multiple
Does 5.3x mean the average company is worth 5.3x EBITDA?
No. 5.3x is a useful benchmark for the CEE market, but it does not replace analysis of the specific company. What’s more, the Dealsuite sample covers the mid-market and aggregates results across many countries and sectors. Valuing a Polish company must account for its scale, sector, market position and the realistic pool of potential buyers.
The most useful way to use multiples is to build a range: start with a sector and size benchmark, then adjust for the quality of the business, and finally test whether specific buyers can justify a strategic premium.
Where expectations most often diverge
In conversations with owners, the most common source of disagreement is not the multiple itself, but what it’s applied to. The seller looks at EBITDA from the last, usually best, year. The buyer calculates an average across several years, adjusts it for owner compensation at market rates, and strips out one-off revenue and costs that will simply recur after the deal anyway.
A second common gap concerns the move from Enterprise Value to the amount landing in the owner’s account. Debt, leases, the agreed working capital level and the price-adjustment mechanism can shift the outcome by more than half a turn of the multiple. It pays to run these numbers before the first conversation with an investor, not after.
A multiple is not the transaction price
Price is the outcome of negotiation and process. A company may have a “fundamental” benchmark of 6x EBITDA, but if three strategic bidders compete for the asset and the acquisition offers meaningful synergies for them, the final price can be higher. Conversely, a lack of competition, weak data preparation, or risks uncovered in due diligence can lower value or push part of the price into an earn-out.
Selling a company is therefore not just about finding the right multiple. It’s about creating conditions in which the market has a reason to pay the top of that range – or more.
How to use multiples in practice
What is the company’s normalised EBITDA?
Which benchmark fits the right industry and company size?
What features of the business justify a premium or discount?
Who is the most natural buyer?
How can the process structure convert potential value into an actual price?
This material is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a company valuation or investment recommendation.
Data from the Dealsuite CEE M&A Monitor (February 2026), the Dealsuite European M&A Monitor (March 2026), and Aswath Damodaran’s datasets (January 2026). Sources use different samples, geographic scope and methodologies, so multiples should not be compared mechanically or applied directly to a specific company. Data as of 05.08.2026.
