Revenue vs. EBITDA: Choosing the Right Earnout Metric
This is Part 1 of a two-part series on structuring and enforcing earnouts in middle-market M&A transactions. Part 2 focuses on post-closing operational covenants and governance.
When negotiating an earnout in a middle-market M&A transaction, choosing the underlying metric is one of the most critical decisions both parties will make. The two primary choices, gross revenue and EBITDA, measure fundamentally different aspects of a company’s financial performance. Selecting the wrong metric for a given transaction can lead to unintended operational incentives and bitter post-closing disputes.
Understanding when each metric is typically deployed, along with the distinct legal and operational risks each presents, allows buyers and sellers to construct a deal structure that reflects true commercial value.
1. When Gross Revenue Earnouts Are Used
Gross revenue earnouts are standard in smaller transactions. They are also common in professional services firms and asset-light businesses where top-line customer retention is the primary goal.
For sellers, gross revenue is attractive because top-line numbers are difficult for a buyer to manipulate through internal accounting adjustments. However, revenue metrics create inherent friction. A seller incentivized purely by revenue may push for low-margin sales, aggressive price discounts, or risky customer credit terms just to reach the threshold. For buyers, paying an earnout on unprofitable revenue can turn a strategic acquisition into an expensive liability.
2. When EBITDA Earnouts Are Used
EBITDA earnouts dominate larger transactions, where established operating history and profit margins drive valuation. Private equity buyers, institutional acquirers, and mature middle-market companies frequently favor EBITDA because it measures true operational profitability.
While EBITDA aligns both parties around profitability, it exposes sellers to significant post-closing risk. EBITDA is susceptible to discretionary accounting decisions made by the buyer. Parent company overhead allocations, management fees, shifts in capital expenditure policies, and executive compensation changes can artificially depress reported EBITDA, depriving the seller of an earned payout even when sales are booming.
3. Constructing Contractual Safeguards
When gross revenue is selected, buyers should negotiate minimum gross margin thresholds or price floor restrictions to prevent top-line volume dumping. Conversely, when EBITDA is chosen, sellers must negotiate precise definitions in the purchase agreement. These could include consistent GAAP application based on the target’s historical practices, explicit exclusions of corporate overhead or transaction expenses, or mandatory neutral accounting dispute resolution mechanisms to prevent litigation.
Crucially, picking the metric is only half the battle. The metric you select directly dictates how you must structure post-closing governance. While gross revenue earnouts primarily require safeguards against price dumping, EBITDA earnouts require strict operational autonomy covenants, capital support commitments, and overhead restrictions to prevent parent-company manipulation.
Now that you have selected the right financial metric, how do you make sure the buyer doesn’t undermine it post-closing? Read my next post on Protecting Earnout Value When the Seller Steps Down.
The experienced Business Lawyers at Beresford Booth can assist with all types of business matters at any stage. Contact us at info@beresfordlaw.com or call us at (425) 776-4100 to see how we can help.