In any business sale or acquisition process in Spain, the first question asked by both sellers and buyers is always the same: how many times EBITDA are deals closing at in my sector? The correct answer is not a single number, but a range that depends on sector, revenue profile, and a dozen factors that this article unpacks with data from real transactions between 2024 and Q1 2026.
What the EBITDA multiple is and why it dominates Spanish valuations
The EV/EBITDA multiple compares Enterprise Value (EV = market capitalisation + net debt) with EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortisation). When a company is said to have sold “at 7× EBITDA” it means the price paid for the entire business, including assumed net debt, equals seven times its operating profit before depreciation.
Why has it become the reference metric in the Spanish market? Three practical reasons. First, it is comparable across businesses with different capital structures: a highly leveraged and an unlevered business can trade at the same EV/EBITDA multiple even though their P/E ratios are radically different. Second, it removes the effect of depreciation policy, which in Spain varies enormously by sector and company size. Third, investment banks, private equity funds and M&A advisers use it as the common denominator for communicating valuations quickly and intelligibly.
The EBITDA that matters in a transaction is adjusted or normalised EBITDA: non-recurring items are excluded, founder compensation is adjusted to the cost of an equivalent market-rate executive, and personal expenses charged to the business are removed. In Spanish SMEs, this difference typically exceeds 30%.
Reference table: EV/EBITDA multiples by sector in Spain 2026
The table below aggregates data from M&A transactions published in Spain between January 2024 and March 2026, drawn from three sources: Capital & Corporate (the benchmark publication for the Spanish M&A market), Mergermarket (global database with Iberian coverage), and transactions registered on BME Growth. Ranges reflect the 25th–75th percentile of documented transactions; extreme outliers are excluded.
| Sector | EV/EBITDA Range | Key notes |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional retail | 4–6x | Sensitive to consumption cycles, margins compressed by e-commerce |
| E-commerce / DTC | 7–10x | Premium for owned digital channel; customer LTV as value driver |
| B2B SaaS | 8–15x | ARR recurrence; NRR >110% drives the upper end |
| B2C SaaS | 6–12x | Lower than B2B due to higher churn and more intensive CAC |
| Industrial manufacturing | 5–7x | Stable valuation; discount for capex intensity |
| Hospitality / restaurants | 4–5x | High seasonality, location dependency |
| Professional services | 5–8x | Law firms, engineering; premium for key talent retention |
| Private healthcare / clinics | 8–12x | Inelastic demand, supply deficit; active fund interest |
| Food / FMCG | 6–8x | Brand and distribution determine position within range |
| Real estate (asset-heavy) | 6–9x | Compare NAV vs operating EBITDA depending on asset type |
| Renewables / energy | 8–14x | Long-term PPAs justify the upper end |
| Logistics | 5–8x | Prime logistics 7–8x; last-mile lower |
| Construction | 4–6x | Cyclicality, public-sector dependency, fragmentation |
| Private education | 7–10x | Enrolment recurrence, accreditation barriers |
Source: Aggregated M&A transactions Spain 2024–2026 (Capital & Corporate, Mergermarket, BME Growth). P25–P75 ranges. Compiled by BMC, April 2026.
Why the ranges are wide
A range of 5–8x in professional services is not imprecision: it reflects the real dispersion of transactions. A tax advisory firm with 80% of clients on monthly retainer contracts, 10% annual organic growth, and a consolidated management team not dependent on the founding partner can reach the top of the range. One with 60% of revenues from one-off engagements and a founding partner who personally manages all key relationships will rarely exceed the bottom of the range.
Factors that move the multiple within a sector
Knowing the sector range is the starting point. What determines where a specific business lands within that range depends on five structural variables.
Revenue recurrence. The factor most valued by private equity funds and strategic buyers. A SaaS with annual contracts and 115% NRR is worth more than one with the same EBITDA but monthly renewals and 18% churn. In non-technology sectors, recurrence is measured by the proportion of contracted revenue, year-on-year client retention, and pipeline predictability.
EBITDA margin level and trend. The multiple rewards margin expansion. A business with an 18% EBITDA margin growing to 20% is worth more than one with 22% that has compressed two points over three years, even if the absolute EBITDA is similar.
Historical and projected growth. The Spanish market rule of thumb: each percentage point of sustained organic growth adds approximately 0.3–0.5x to the base multiple within the same sector. A business growing at 15% per year in a sector with a 6x median can aspire to 7–8x if growth is demonstrable and not dependent on a single contract.
Founder dependency. Concentration of knowledge, commercial relationships, or operational authority in a single person is the most common and hardest-to-quantify discount. Buyers apply 1–2x discounts when the founder is irreplaceable and there is no consolidated second management tier.
Customer concentration. If 40% of revenue comes from a single client, the concentration risk justifies a 1–1.5x discount relative to the sector median, regardless of that client’s creditworthiness.
When not to use EBITDA multiples
Multiples are a market tool, not a universal formula. There are situations where applying them leads to erroneous conclusions:
Pre-revenue or negative EBITDA businesses. There is no calculation base. Valuation in these cases uses projected cash flows (DCF with a high discount rate), comparable funding rounds, or revenue multiples (EV/Revenue).
Businesses in a downturn with temporarily depressed EBITDA. Applying a multiple to an atypical year’s EBITDA distorts the valuation. Use EBITDA normalised over three years or projected Year 1 EBITDA with documented adjustments.
Sectors without sufficient comparables. In very specific niches, the scarcity of comparable transactions makes the sector range unreliable. Complement with DCF and underlying asset valuation.
Asset-heavy businesses with undervalued assets. A hotel or industrial plant with significant real estate assets may have modest operating EBITDA but a much higher NAV. Combine operating valuation with independent asset appraisal.
Comparison with DCF and asset-based valuation
The three main valuation methods are not mutually exclusive; they are used together in any professional report.
EV/EBITDA (market comparables). Fast, anchored in real transaction prices, transparent. Limitation: depends on the availability of comparables and may reflect market timing rather than intrinsic value.
DCF (Discounted Cash Flow). Theoretically the most rigorous because it values future cash flows discounted at the cost of capital. Limitation: extremely sensitive to growth assumptions and the discount rate (WACC). A one-point change in WACC can move valuation by 15–25%. Useful as validation of the comparables range.
Adjusted net asset value (NAV). Appropriate for investment holdings, real estate companies, or businesses in liquidation. For operating businesses, it typically undervalues goodwill and cash-generating capacity.
In practice, buyers present a triangulated valuation table: EBITDA multiple (market range) + DCF (intrinsic validation) + NAV (floor). Negotiation takes place within the resulting range.
Worked example: professional services SME
A tax and employment advisory firm based in Murcia presents the following audited financials for 2025:
- Revenue: €2.8 million
- Accounting EBITDA: €448,000 (16% margin)
- Adjusted EBITDA: €392,000 (after adjusting partner compensation to a €90,000 market rate and excluding €56,000 of non-recurring office refurbishment costs)
- Revenue growth: 8% per year over the past three years
- Clients on monthly retainer: 74%
- Top-3 clients: 28% of revenue
- Headcount: 12 people; three senior managers with more than 5 years of experience
- Founder dependency: medium
Comparables valuation:
Professional services in Spain trades between 5x and 8x adjusted EBITDA. Positioning factors:
- High recurrence (74% contracts): +0.5x above median
- 8% growth: neutral (sector median)
- Low client concentration (28% top-3): +0.5x
- Medium founder dependency: −0.5x
- Slightly below-average margin: −0.3x
Estimated position: 6.2x–7.0x
Indicative valuation: €392,000 × 6.5x (midpoint) = €2.55 million (range: €2.43M–€2.74M)
DCF validation (simplified): With projected free cash flows growing at 7% per year and terminal value at 2% growth, discounted at 11% WACC, the result is between €2.30M and €2.70M — consistent with the comparables range.
How to verify the multiple for your sector: three sources
Listed comparables. Companies on BME Growth, Euronext, or Nasdaq publish their financials, and market prices allow current multiples to be calculated. Note that listed companies are typically larger, introducing a size discount (typically 1–2x).
Private transaction databases. Mergermarket, Capital IQ and Capital & Corporate contain transactions with varying levels of detail. M&A advisers have access and can provide a comparables report.
Recent sector transactions. Spanish business press (Expansión, Cinco Días, El Economista) publishes prices for the most relevant deals when the parties disclose them. Useful for calibrating the market in sectors with mid-size deals (>€5M).