IPEV: Multiples vs DCF vs Net Assets
Three of IPEV's five techniques: multiples for established/mature, DCF for cash-generating with forecasts, net assets for early-stage or distressed.
Introduction
IPEV's five investment-level techniques — Multiples, Industry Benchmarks, Available Market Prices, DCF, and Net Assets — give VC and PE fund managers a structured toolkit for fair-value measurement of private investments. This page focuses on three of the five: Multiples, DCF, and Net Assets. They span the spectrum from market-anchored (Multiples), through forward-looking cash-flow modelling (DCF), to asset-based measurement (Net Assets) — and the choice between them is the most consequential methodology decision in the typical portfolio.
This page compares the three techniques under IPEV (global), with disclosure framing under IFRS 13 (UK and global) and ASC 820 (US). It sets out when each applies, the data inputs each requires, the calibration approach, and the audit-defensibility profile. The reader is assumed to be a VC / PE fund manager, fund CFO, or fund auditor working on portfolio fair-value reporting where the choice between these three techniques is material.
TL;DR: Multiples apply an earnings, revenue, or other-metric multiple from comparable peers to the portfolio company — used for established companies with stable metrics. DCF discounts projected cash flows at a risk-adjusted rate — used for cash-generating businesses with credible forecasts. Net Assets measures fair value from the book or fair value of net assets — used in narrow circumstances (very early stage, asset-holding entities, distressed situations). All three sit within IPEV's five investment-level techniques; the other two — Industry Benchmarks and Available Market Prices — apply in different specific contexts.
Multiples
The Multiples technique applies a market-observed multiple (EV/EBITDA, EV/revenue, P/E, P/B, sector-specific metrics) to the portfolio company's relevant financial measure to derive the company's fair value, then derives the investor's stake value by reference to its position in the capital structure. The technique anchors to observable market pricing — public peer multiples, recent transaction multiples, or both — and is the most-used IPEV technique in established-company portfolios.
How Multiples works
- Identify the portfolio company's relevant financial measure (EBITDA, revenue, customers, ARR, GMV, sector-specific KPI)
- Identify a comparable peer set — public peers, recent private transactions, or a blend
- Derive the appropriate multiple from the peer set (median, range, adjustment for size / growth / profitability)
- Apply the multiple to the portfolio company's measure to derive enterprise value or equity value
- Adjust for marketability discount, control discount or premium, and any other position-specific factors
- Allocate to the investor's specific stake by reference to capital structure (preferred shares, conversion features, liquidation preferences)
- Calibrate against the original transaction price and subsequent operating performance per IPEV guidance
When Multiples applies
- Established growth-stage companies with stable revenue and / or earnings metrics
- Mature companies with clear public-peer comparables
- Companies in sectors where transaction-multiple benchmarks are observable
- Where the metric the multiple applies to is meaningfully predictive (revenue for SaaS, EBITDA for industrials, GMV for marketplaces)
What you need for Multiples
- Reliable financial data on the portfolio company for the relevant metric
- Defensible peer set — public peers and / or recent transactions
- Multiple derivation with sensitivity analysis
- Marketability and control adjustments supported by evidence
- Capital structure detail for stake allocation
- Calibration evidence against the original investment
Defensibility profile
Multiples is highly defensible when the peer set is genuinely comparable and the multiple is supported by current evidence. Audit attention concentrates on peer-set composition (peers that are too small / too large / wrong sector are the most common challenge), the choice of metric (EBITDA vs revenue vs sector-specific), and the magnitude of the marketability and control adjustments. Calibration to the original transaction price is a routine test — if the multiple applied at entry would not have produced the entry price, the technique is not well-calibrated.
A late-stage SaaS investment is valued at the Q4 2026 reporting date. The company generates £42m ARR with 35% NRR-adjusted growth. The peer set is 12 publicly-listed SaaS companies with similar growth profile; the median EV/ARR multiple is 8.2× with an IQR of 6.5×-10.5×. The chosen multiple is 7.5× — at the lower-middle of the peer range, reflecting the portfolio company's slightly weaker profitability profile. Applied to ARR, the enterprise value is £315m, equity value (post net debt) is £290m. The investor's preferred stake with 1× liquidation preference is allocated £36m of the equity value. Calibration: the original investment was at 9.5× ARR — the current multiple has compressed in line with public peer compression of the same period (peer median was 11.2× at entry).
Multiples works when the peer set is credible and the company's financial metrics are stable enough to multiply meaningfully. Audit teams test the peer set composition first and the marketability adjustment second. Calibration to the original transaction is a continuous discipline, not a one-time check.
DCF (Discounted Cash Flow)
The DCF technique projects the company's future cash flows over the forecast horizon and discounts them to present value at a risk-adjusted rate. The output is the company's enterprise value (or equity value, depending on the cash-flow definition) from which the investor's stake value is allocated. DCF is most applicable to cash-generating businesses with credible forecasts; it is less applicable to very early-stage companies where the forecast is speculative.
How DCF works
- Project the portfolio company's cash flows over the forecast horizon (typically 5-10 years)
- Add a terminal value — perpetuity at terminal growth rate, exit multiple, or other terminal approach
- Select an appropriate discount rate (typically WACC for enterprise-level DCF; cost of equity for equity-level DCF)
- Discount the cash flows and terminal value to present value
- Adjust the resulting enterprise / equity value for any position-specific factors
- Allocate to the investor's specific stake by reference to capital structure
- Calibrate against the original transaction price and subsequent forecast revisions
When DCF applies
- Cash-generating businesses with stable enough operations to support a credible forecast
- Companies where the multiples approach is less defensible (limited comparable peers, atypical sector, unusual capital structure)
- Companies in sectors where DCF is the industry-standard valuation method (utilities, infrastructure, project finance)
- As a cross-check on multiples-derived values for material holdings
What you need for DCF
- Credible forecast supported by management's plan and any external validation
- Terminal assumptions (growth rate or exit multiple) supported by industry data
- Discount rate supported by capital structure, sector beta, risk-free rate, equity risk premium
- Sensitivity analysis across key assumptions (terminal growth, discount rate, year-1 EBITDA, etc.)
- Calibration evidence against the original investment and subsequent reforecasts
Defensibility profile
DCF is highly defensible when the forecast is credible, the discount rate is consistent with the cash flows being discounted (unlevered cash flows → WACC; equity cash flows → cost of equity), and the terminal assumption does not dominate the value. Audit attention concentrates on three areas: (a) the credibility of the forecast (management's track record vs forecast accuracy), (b) the discount-rate inputs (beta, capital structure assumption, risk-free rate), and (c) the proportion of value in the terminal — where the terminal is more than 70% of total enterprise value, the forecast is doing too little work and the technique should be reconsidered.
In IPEV portfolio reporting, DCF outputs are typically equity-level (the investor's stake) — derived either as direct equity DCF (cash flow to equity, discounted at cost of equity) or as enterprise DCF (unlevered cash flow, discounted at WACC, with net debt and other claims subtracted to derive equity). The mathematics are equivalent when applied consistently; mismatched cash flows and discount rates are the most common error.
Net Assets
The Net Assets technique measures fair value by reference to the company's net assets — either book value or, more commonly in IPEV practice, the fair value of identifiable assets less the fair value of liabilities. The technique is used in narrow circumstances where the company's value is primarily asset-based rather than earnings-based, where the company has not yet generated meaningful operating economics, or where the company is in distress and is being valued on a break-up or liquidation basis.
How Net Assets works
- Identify the company's identifiable assets at fair value (cash, marketable securities, recoverable receivables, properties at appraised value, identifiable intangibles at fair value)
- Identify the company's liabilities at fair value (debt, deferred consideration, redeemable preferred at fair value, contingent liabilities at expected value)
- Compute net assets at fair value as identifiable assets minus liabilities
- Adjust for any position-specific factors (control adjustments, marketability discount, asset-disposition costs in distress scenarios)
- Allocate to the investor's specific stake by reference to capital structure
When Net Assets applies
- Very early-stage companies where operating cash flows are negligible and the company's value is primarily in cash holdings and intellectual property
- Asset-holding entities (real estate, natural resources, patent-holding vehicles) where the value sits squarely in the asset base
- Distressed or wind-down situations where the going-concern assumption no longer holds and the company is being valued on a liquidation basis
- Where multiples and DCF are both unavailable or unsupportable
What you need for Net Assets
- Comprehensive list of identifiable assets at fair value
- Comprehensive list of liabilities at fair value
- Specific support for any material intangibles included in the asset base
- Disposition cost estimates where the valuation is on a break-up basis
- Capital structure detail for stake allocation
Defensibility profile
Net Assets is highly defensible when the asset and liability lists are complete, the fair values are supported by external evidence (appraisals, market data, expert reports), and the underlying premise (asset-based valuation is the right framework for this company) is documented. Audit attention concentrates on (a) the completeness of identifiable assets and liabilities, (b) the fair-value support for material items, and (c) whether the choice of Net Assets is defensible vs the alternative techniques (i.e. is this genuinely asset-based or has it been selected because the alternative methods produce uncomfortable answers?).
A pre-revenue biotech holding with £8m of cash, two patent applications at the early-stage technology asset value of £1.5m each, no debt, and a senior preferred liquidation preference of £6m. Net assets at fair value = £11m; the £6m preferred has full liquidation preference, leaving £5m to common equity. The investor's £6m preferred is valued at £6m; the £2m of follow-on common is valued at £5m of common value × 40% ownership = £2m. Total fair value of the investor's stake: £8m. Calibration: the original investment was at the same Net Assets profile pro forma for the investment; the technique produces consistent results when reapplied.
Side-by-Side Comparison
The table below sets out the practitioner's quick-reference view across the three IPEV techniques covered here. (3-way schema constraints fold details — the markdown table is authoritative.)
| Criterion | Multiples | DCF and Net Assets (combined view) |
|---|---|---|
| What it measures | Market-anchored value via observable multiples | DCF: forward cash-flow value. Net Assets: asset-based break-up or wind-down value |
| Best fit | Established growth-stage and mature companies with stable metrics | DCF: cash-generating with credible forecasts. Net Assets: very early stage / asset-holding / distressed |
| Data inputs | Peer set, multiples evidence, company financial metric, marketability and control adjustments | DCF: forecast, terminal, discount rate. Net Assets: asset and liability fair values |
| Anchor to original transaction | Calibration via multiple at entry vs current multiple | DCF: forecast vs subsequent actuals. Net Assets: asset base evolution |
| Sensitivity to peers | High — peer set composition drives value | DCF: low — primarily internal forecast. Net Assets: medium — depends on asset comparability |
| Defensibility in audit | High when peer set is credible | DCF: high when forecast is credible. Net Assets: high when asset list is complete |
| Typical magnitude | Range driven by peer multiple range | DCF: range driven by forecast and discount rate sensitivity. Net Assets: range driven by asset fair-value uncertainty |
| Common pitfall | Peer set drift; marketability adjustment without evidence | DCF: terminal dominating value; mismatched cash flow and discount rate. Net Assets: incomplete asset list; choosing when DCF or Multiples should apply |
| Calibration discipline | Continuous — multiple at entry vs current multiple | DCF: forecast accuracy vs actuals over time. Net Assets: change in net assets across periods |
| Frequency in portfolios | Most common across established holdings | DCF: common for cash-generating; Net Assets: rare and context-specific |
| Disclosure under IFRS 13 / ASC 820 | Level 3 with peer set and adjustment disclosure | DCF: Level 3 with forecast and discount rate disclosure. Net Assets: Level 3 with asset list disclosure |
| TAB applicability | Implicit in multiples (peer-implied) | DCF: explicit in cash flow projection. Net Assets: applied to intangible components |
| Where the technique is wrong | Peer set is too narrow or biased | DCF: forecast not credible. Net Assets: company has meaningful operating value not captured in assets |
| Fit with control / marketability adjustments | Standard practice | DCF: less common adjustment; Net Assets: case-specific |
| Cross-check with other techniques | Often cross-checked with DCF | DCF cross-checked with Multiples; Net Assets cross-checked rarely |
How the three techniques work together in portfolio reporting
In a typical VC / PE portfolio reporting cycle, the three techniques are applied across different holdings — and sometimes in combination for the same holding:
- Multiples-primary, DCF cross-check. The dominant pattern for established growth-stage and mature holdings. The Multiples conclusion is the primary; the DCF cross-check tests the implied cash-flow logic
- DCF-primary, Multiples cross-check. For cash-generating companies in atypical sectors with limited peer comparables. DCF is the primary; observed multiples cross-check for sense-check
- Net Assets-primary, no cross-check. For very early-stage or asset-holding companies where DCF and Multiples are not supportable. Net Assets stands alone
- Calibration loop. Across all three, the calibration to the original transaction is continuous — the entry price should reconcile to the entry-period application of the chosen technique, and subsequent periods should produce results that move in step with operating reality
A practitioner who runs the right primary technique with a credible cross-check produces portfolio fair values that survive LP scrutiny, auditor review, and the calibration discipline that IPEV explicitly requires.
Multiples for established growth-stage and mature companies; DCF for cash-generating with credible forecasts; Net Assets for very early stage, asset-holding, or distressed. The defensible position uses the right technique for the company's stage and operating profile, with a credible cross-check where one is available. Calibration to the original transaction is continuous, not occasional.
FAQ
Which IPEV technique is the most-used?
Multiples — across the typical established VC and PE portfolio, Multiples is the dominant technique for fair-value measurement of growth-stage and mature holdings. The reason is that observable peer multiples provide a clear market-anchor that auditors and LPs can verify; DCF is the second-most-common, applied where Multiples is less supportable; Net Assets, Industry Benchmarks, and Available Market Prices are used in specific narrower contexts.
What are the other two IPEV techniques?
The five investment-level techniques are: Multiples, Industry Benchmarks, Available Market Prices, DCF, and Net Assets. This page focuses on three of the five (Multiples, DCF, Net Assets). The two not covered here are: (a) Industry Benchmarks — observed metrics for comparable private or public peers, calibrated to the specific investment, used where the relevant industry has clear KPI benchmarks (e.g. SaaS net dollar retention, marketplace GMV per active user), and (b) Available Market Prices — recent transaction prices, public comparable prices, or other observable market evidence, used where a recent comparable transaction provides a strong anchor.
When should I use DCF instead of Multiples?
When the peer set for Multiples is thin or unconvincing, when the company operates in an atypical sector with limited public comparables, when the company has unusual capital structure or business model that makes peer multiples less meaningful, or when DCF is the industry-standard valuation method (infrastructure, project finance, utilities). DCF can also serve as the cross-check on a Multiples-primary conclusion for material holdings. The defensible position uses whichever technique is best-supported by the available data and uses the other as a cross-check where possible.
When is Net Assets the right technique?
In narrow circumstances: (a) very early-stage companies where operating cash flows are negligible and value is primarily in cash, IP, and identifiable assets, (b) asset-holding entities (real estate, natural resources, patent-holding vehicles) where the asset base is the operative value, and (c) distressed or wind-down situations where the going-concern assumption no longer holds. Net Assets is rare in typical growth and mature portfolios; choosing it for an operating company is a signal that something is wrong with the company or with the alternative techniques being applied.
How does calibration work in IPEV?
Calibration is the practice of testing the chosen technique by applying it as of the original investment date and confirming that the result matches (or reconciles to) the original investment price. If the multiple, DCF, or net-assets calculation at entry would have produced the entry price, the technique is well-calibrated. Subsequent applications should produce results that move in step with operating reality (revenue growth, profitability change, market multiple shifts). Where the calibration breaks — the entry-period reapplication does not reproduce the entry price — the chosen technique or its inputs need re-examination.
What is the role of marketability discount?
In Multiples (and to a lesser extent DCF), a marketability discount is sometimes applied to reflect the lack of a liquid market for private investments. The discount captures the value gap between an identical asset that could be sold immediately at the multiple and a private investment that requires a transaction process to realise. Typical discount ranges are 10-30% depending on stage and capital structure. The discount must be supported by evidence (specific studies, observed transactions, transparent reasoning) — pulling a number from a range without specific support is the most common audit challenge.
Do these techniques produce Level 3 fair values?
Almost always under IFRS 13 (UK and global) and ASC 820 (US). Level 1 requires quoted prices in active markets for the identical asset; Level 2 requires observable inputs for the same asset (similar in active markets, identical in inactive markets). Private investments rarely meet either threshold. Multiples uses peer prices that are observable but require significant adjustment; DCF uses unobservable forecast inputs; Net Assets uses fair-value inputs for the asset components. All three produce Level 3 fair values with the associated extensive disclosure requirements.
How does the choice of technique affect cross-framework reporting?
Materially less than fund managers sometimes assume. The IPEV-derived conclusion is the same whether it is being disclosed under IFRS 13 (UK and global) or ASC 820 (US) — the disclosure formats differ but the underlying value does not. Where a single fund reports under both frameworks (UK / global LPs and US LPs / feeder vehicles), the same IPEV-derived conclusion per investment supports both regulatory frameworks. The two frameworks diverge in specific narrow areas (NAV practical expedient, certain disclosure conventions) but not in ways that typically change the chosen IPEV technique or its conclusion.
When to Seek Expert Support
Technique selection across the three covered here is routine when the company's stage and operating profile is unambiguous — established growth-stage → Multiples; cash-generating with credible forecast → DCF; very early stage or asset-holding → Net Assets. It becomes technically demanding where (a) the peer set for Multiples is thin or contested, (b) the DCF terminal dominates the value or the forecast credibility is challenged, (c) a holding straddles two techniques and the choice is material to LP reporting, or (d) calibration to the original transaction has broken and the technique needs reassessment.
Opagio's Asset Valuator module (within Opagio Intangibles) supports all five IPEV investment-level techniques across VC and PE portfolios, drives IFRS 13 (UK and global) and ASC 820 (US) Level 3 disclosure outputs, and captures the calibration and cross-check evidence in the Value Drivers Register. The model handles the technique-selection rationale and the cross-method consistency that institutional LPs increasingly expect.
For material holdings where the technique choice is contested, the right pattern is to automate the mechanical work and have a qualified specialist review the technique selection, peer set composition, and calibration evidence before sign-off.
Book a demo: See how Asset Valuator handles an IPEV-aligned VC / PE portfolio with Multiples, DCF, and Net Assets applied across holdings at different stages and operating profiles. Book a demo or speak to our team.
Related Glossary Terms
Learn More
Ready to Value Your Intangible Assets?
Use Opagio's valuation tools to apply these methods to your own business.