In any company sale or acquisition process in Spain, buyers and sellers ask the same question first: what [EBITDA](/en/glossary/ebitda) multiple are transactions 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 structural factors. This article sets out a reference table built from real [M&A](/en/corporate-advisory/mergers-acquisitions/) transactions between 2024 and Q1 2026, and explains what moves a specific business within that range.
What is the EBITDA multiple and why does it dominate Spanish M&A?
The EV/EBITDA multiple compares Enterprise Value (EV = market capitalisation + net debt) to EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortisation). When a transaction closes “at 7x EBITDA”, it means the total price paid for the business — including the debt the buyer assumes — equals seven times annual operating profit before depreciation and interest.
Three practical reasons explain why EV/EBITDA has become the reference metric in the Spanish market. First, it is capital-structure neutral: a highly leveraged company and a debt-free one can trade at the same EBITDA multiple even though their P/E ratios differ dramatically, making cross-company comparisons meaningful. Second, it eliminates the effect of depreciation policy, which varies significantly across sectors and company sizes in Spain. Third, investment banks, private equity firms, and M&A advisers use it as a common denominator for communicating valuations quickly and transparently.
The EBITDA that matters in a transaction is adjusted or normalised EBITDA: non-recurring items are excluded, the founder’s compensation is restated to market-rate management cost, and personal expenses run through the business are removed. In Spanish SMEs this adjustment routinely exceeds 30% of reported EBITDA.
Reference Table: EV/EBITDA Multiples by Sector, Spain 2026
The table below aggregates M&A transactions published in Spain between January 2024 and March 2026, drawn from three sources: Capital & Corporate (the reference publication for the Spanish M&A market), Mergermarket (global database with Iberian coverage), and transactions registered on BME Growth. Ranges represent the 25th–75th percentile of documented deals; extreme outliers are excluded.
| Sector | EV/EBITDA Range | Key notes |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional retail | 4–6x | Sensitive to consumption cycle; margin pressure from e-commerce |
| E-commerce / DTC | 7–10x | Premium for owned digital channel; LTV as primary driver |
| B2B SaaS | 8–15x | ARR recurrence; NRR >110% drives upper end |
| B2C SaaS | 6–12x | Below B2B due to higher churn and more CAC-intensive growth |
| Industrial manufacturing | 5–7x | Stable; discounted for capex intensity |
| Hospitality / restaurants | 4–5x | High seasonality; location dependency |
| Professional services | 5–8x | Advisory, engineering; premium for retained senior talent |
| Private healthcare / clinics | 8–12x | Inelastic demand; supply deficit; active PE interest |
| Food & FMCG | 6–8x | Brand and distribution channel are the key differentiators |
| Real estate (asset-heavy) | 6–9x | NAV vs. operating EBITDA analysis required |
| Renewables / energy | 8–14x | Long-term PPAs justify upper end |
| Logistics | 5–8x | Prime logistics 7–8x; last-mile lower end |
| 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). Percentile 25–75 range. Prepared by BMC, April 2026.
Why ranges are wide
A range of 5x to 8x in professional services is not imprecision — it reflects actual transaction dispersion. A tax advisory firm with 80% of clients under monthly retainer contracts, 10% organic growth, and a consolidated management team independent of the founder can reach the upper end. One with 60% project-based revenues, 40% concentration in three clients, and a founding partner who personally manages all key relationships will rarely exceed the lower end.
Five factors that move the multiple within a sector
Knowing the sector range is the starting point. Where a specific business sits within that range depends on five structural variables.
Revenue recurrence. The most valued factor among private equity 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-tech sectors, recurrence is measured by the proportion of revenues under contract, client retention year over year, and pipeline predictability.
EBITDA margin level and trend. The multiple rewards margin expansion. A business with an 18% EBITDA margin growing toward 20% is worth more than one at 22% that has compressed two points over three years, even if 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 sector base multiple. A business growing at 15% per year in a sector with a 6x median can target 7–8x if the 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 frequent and most difficult discount to quantify. Buyers apply discounts of 1–2x when the founder is irreplaceable and there is no consolidated second management tier. The solution is a documented institutionalisation process before the sale process begins.
Customer concentration. The three-percentage-point-per-ten-points rule is a simplification but useful: if 40% of revenues come from a single client, concentration risk justifies a 1x–1.5x discount from the sector median, regardless of that client’s financial strength.
When not to use EBITDA multiples
Multiples are a market tool, not a universal formula. There are situations where applying them produces misleading conclusions:
Pre-revenue or negative EBITDA companies. There is no calculation base. Valuation in these cases uses projected cash flow DCF (with elevated discount rates), comparable funding round valuation, or revenue multiples (EV/Revenue), standard for growth-stage SaaS.
Businesses in a down cycle with temporarily depressed EBITDA. Applying a multiple to an atypical year distorts the valuation. The solution is normalised three-year EBITDA or projected Year 1 EBITDA with documented adjustments.
Sectors without sufficient comparables. In very specific niches — a sole manufacturer of an industrial component, a regulated service provider with an exclusive concession — the scarcity of comparable transactions makes the sector range unreliable. DCF and underlying asset valuation should supplement.
Asset-heavy businesses with undervalued assets. A hotel or an industrial plant with significant real estate assets may have a modest operating EBITDA but a much higher NAV. The EBITDA multiple undervalues the asset; the correct valuation combines operating valuation with an independent asset appraisal.
DCF vs. multiples vs. net asset value: when to use each
The three main valuation methods are not mutually exclusive — any professional report uses them in combination. The practical distinction is:
EV/EBITDA (market comparables). Fast, anchored in actual transaction prices, transparent. Limitation: depends on comparable availability and can reflect M&A cycle peaks or troughs rather than intrinsic value.
DCF (Discounted Cash Flow). Theoretically the most rigorous, because it values projected future free cash flows discounted at the cost of capital. Limitation: extremely sensitive to growth assumptions and discount rate (WACC). A one-point change in WACC or two points in terminal growth can move valuation 15–25%. Best used as validation of the comparables range.
Adjusted net asset value. Appropriate for investment holding companies, real estate vehicles, or businesses in liquidation. Values assets at market prices less liabilities. In operating businesses it typically undervalues goodwill and earning capacity.
In practice, Spanish M&A advisers present a triangulated valuation bridge: market multiple range + DCF validation + asset-based floor. Negotiation takes place within the resulting range, adjusted for business-specific factors.
Worked example: professional services SME
A tax and employment advisory firm based in Murcia presents the following audited financials for financial year 2025:
- Revenue: €2.8 million
- Reported EBITDA: €448,000 (margin 16%)
- Adjusted EBITDA: €392,000 (after restating partner compensation to €90,000 market rate and excluding €56,000 one-off office refurbishment)
- Revenue growth: 8% per year over three consecutive years
- Clients under retainer contracts: 74%
- Top-3 clients: 28% of revenue
- Staff: 12 people; three senior managers with >5 years’ tenure
- Founder dependency: moderate (manages top-5 client relationships; consolidated team in place)
Comparable-based valuation:
The professional services sector trades in Spain between 5x and 8x adjusted EBITDA. Applying the positioning factors:
- High recurrence (74% contracts): +0.5x above median
- Growth 8%: neutral (sector median)
- Low client concentration (28% top-3): +0.5x
- Moderate founder dependency: −0.5x
- Margin 14% on adjusted revenue: slightly below sector norm (16–18%): −0.3x
Estimated position within range: 6.2x–7.0x
Indicative valuation: €392,000 × 6.5x (midpoint) = €2.55 million (range: €2.43M–€2.74M)
DCF cross-check (simplified): Free cash flows projected growing 7% per year over five years, terminal value at 2% growth, discounted at an 11% WACC (Spanish SME risk premium), produces a value of €2.30M–€2.70M. Consistent with the comparables range.
Verifying your sector multiple: three sources
Before entering negotiations, any seller should conduct their own comparables research. Freely accessible sources are limited but useful as a starting point.
Listed comparables. Companies traded on BME Growth, Euronext, or Nasdaq publish their financials, and market prices allow current multiples to be calculated. The limitation is that listed companies are typically larger and more diversified than Spanish SMEs, requiring a size discount (typically 1–2x) to be applied.
Private transaction databases. Mergermarket, Capital IQ (S&P), and the archive of Capital & Corporate capture transactions with varying detail levels. Full database access requires subscription, but M&A advisers have access and can provide a comparables report as part of a valuation mandate.
Recent public transactions in the sector. Spanish financial press (Expansión, Cinco Días, El Economista) publishes prices for the most significant deals, sometimes including approximate multiples when disclosed by the parties. A fragmentary source, but useful for calibrating the market for mid-sized transactions (>€5 million).
The most robust validation combines all three sources and, for material transactions, commissions a formal comparables report from an M&A adviser with access to undisclosed deals.
