Series A Valuation Benchmarks by Sector, 2024–2025
Founder expectations and institutional reality have moved apart over the last 18 months. This is the sector-by-sector view of where Series A valuations have actually landed — and the intangible asset evidence that differentiates inside-the-range from top-of-range outcomes.
Valuation benchmarks are slippery. A headline median from a pitch deck conceals the sector variance that actually drives a term sheet. Two Series A rounds closing in the same quarter — one SaaS, one deep-tech — may differ by 3x on the same ARR, and the reasons live in the intangible asset base, not the revenue line. This cluster walks through the sector shape of Series A valuation data, the construction of a defensible comp set, and why intangible asset evidence shifts where inside the range you land.
Note: Benchmark data evolves continuously. The analysis below reflects the directional picture visible from public transaction data and operator reports through early 2026. For a bespoke comp set tied to your specific sector and stage, Opagio's Valuator engine runs the full four-method framework — available on Starter and above.
How institutional comp sets are built
The comp set a Series A partner builds for an investment memo is not a list of recent rounds. It is a tightly-filtered set of transactions that share three characteristics: sector, stage, and time. Of the three, time is the most under-appreciated. A transaction from 18 months ago is a different market; using it as a direct comp overstates the current environment by a wide margin.
A credible founder-side comp set needs the same filter. Five transactions from the last 18 months in your sector at Series A stage is worth more than twenty older data points scraped from general deal databases.
Sector shape — the 2024–2025 picture
SaaS and software
The headline ARR multiple has compressed significantly from peak levels. Top-quartile performers — those demonstrating net revenue retention above 120%, capital efficiency inside the Rule of 40, and a credible path to Series B metrics — continue to command premium multiples. Median performers have seen multiples compress. The spread between top quartile and median has widened, which is where intangible asset evidence does the work.
Deep-tech and science-led
Valuations here are rarely driven by current revenue. Partners underwrite the IP base, the scientific moat, the founding team's track record, and the commercial path from technology to market. A company with three granted patents, a credible scientific founder, and a published path to product/market fit can attract Series A capital with materially lower revenue than a SaaS company at the same stage — but the capital is priced against the IP, not the revenue line.
Fintech
Regulatory posture dominates. Series A fintech valuations correlate more tightly with regulatory readiness, compliance rigour, and institutional partnership evidence than with raw user or transaction volumes. An authorised e-money institution or FCA-regulated entity trades at a different multiple than an unauthorised platform at comparable scale.
Consumer and D2C
Brand equity and repeat-purchase economics do the work. At Series A, partners underwrite the brand's ability to acquire and retain at unit economics that scale. The intangible asset case for consumer — brand depth, customer capital, data on purchase behaviour — is exactly what the Opagio 12 surfaces.
B2B marketplace and network effects
Take-rate defensibility and cohort-of-supply retention drive valuation. Partners want evidence that the two-sided dynamic is real — not just an assertion in the deck.
Inside the range
- Revenue growth evidenced, intangible base undocumented
- Comps justify the median, nothing pushes higher
- Partner memo: "attractive opportunity"
- Negotiation on price, limited room to move
Top of the range
- Customer capital, IP, and team documented and cohort-verified
- Comps anchor median, intangibles justify premium
- Partner memo: "defensible advantage, durable returns"
- Negotiation on terms, not just price
Where intangible asset evidence shifts the outcome
The Series A valuation you receive is a range, not a point. Where in that range you land depends on the evidence partners can see in your favour. Three intangible asset dimensions move the number most reliably:
- Customer capital depth. Retention quality, expansion motion, and the structure of customer relationships. Documented and cohort-verified customer capital shifts the valuation toward the top of the range.
- IP and technology defensibility. Registered IP, patent assignments, proprietary data assets, and architecture-level moats. Partners distinguish "we have technology" from "we have defensible technology" by what shows up in the IP tab of the data room.
- Team and institutional knowledge. Key-person risk, documented decision rights, and the depth of process maturity. Partners pay more for teams that can operate without heroics.
Example: Purchase Price Allocation studies consistently show intangibles account for the majority of transaction value at Series A and B. The founders who document the intangible base most rigorously tend to negotiate from stronger positions than founders at comparable revenue with weaker evidence. (Sources: Ocean Tomo Intangible Asset Market Value Study; Houlihan Lokey PPA Study 2024.)
Building your own comp set
Start with the filter: your sector, Series A stage, transactions from the last 18 months in the UK or equivalent institutional markets. Aim for five to eight comparables — more if available, fewer if the sector is thin. For each, capture the ARR, the disclosed pre-money valuation, the multiple, and as much context on the intangible asset base as public information permits.
The distribution matters as much as the median. Partners care where in the range you sit, and the intangible asset register is the argument for the top end. For the Opagio 12-grounded approach to building that argument, see Series A readiness.
The Bottom Line
Valuation is a range, not a point. The intangible asset register is the argument for where in the range you land. Build the register first, choose the comp set with care, and the conversation shifts from "what do you think you're worth" to "the evidence supports this part of the range".
Make the intangible argument visible
The Round Readiness Diagnostic surfaces where in the valuation range your current asset base supports — and the evidence gaps that keep you from the top.