B2B SaaS Metrics Benchmark 2023 REPORT

B2B SaaS METRICS
BENCHMARK
2023 REPORT
Research by Benchmarkit - formerly RevOps Squared
Summary Interactive Benchmarks:

This report is a summary bit.ly/SaaSBenchmarksReport2023
of the 2022 benchmarks
gathered and calculated
in the first half of 2023
Special Thanks to our
2023 B2B SaaS Metrics Benchmark Partners
How to use bit.ly/SaaSBenchmarksReport2023
Overlay your internal SaaS Metrics on each benchmark chart
During March – May 2023, RevOps Squared, now Before Benchmarkit, B2B SaaS benchmarks were
doing business as Benchmarkit™, in partnership collected and published annually, in an executive
with multiple partners spanning B2B SaaS vendors, report format only. This traditional approach was
2023 BENCHMARK Venture Capital, M&A Advisory firms, B2B SaaS

Advisory Service companies, CFO outsourcing
valuable for annual planning, and for a single
dimensional review.
RESEARCH companies and global B2B SaaS communities
collected data, in aggregate from 1,880 B2B Benchmarkit™ enables you to evaluate how your
SUMMARY SaaS companies. enterprise value creating performance metrics
measure up to “like” company cohorts is an evolution
Our goal was to include “only” those submissions that of B2B SaaS benchmarks. Cohort based external
were of the highest integrity, and within two standard benchmarks represent a combination of factors that
deviations from the mean whenever possible. As a best reflect the benchmarks relevant to an individual
result, some participant’s metrics were not included, company which is critical to: 1) Prepare for a
and occasionally this resulted in collapsing company financing event; 2) Present company performance to
size and/or average contract values into a investors and board members; 3) Establish
consolidate segment to eliminate data sparsity. measurable goals and KPI Performance that serves
to align the executive team.
B2B SaaS and Cloud Key Performance Indicators
collected include 17 B2B SaaS metrics grouped We appreciate our partners that helped make the
into 5 categories including: 1) Capital Efficiency; benchmarks available, and a special thanks to all
2) Operational Efficiency; 3) Customer Acquisition; the participating companies and executives who
4) Customer Expansion and; 5) Customer Retention. invested their time to make this executive report
and the benchmarks available by cohort
All data is segmented into cohorts by using the at bit.ly/SaaSBenchmarksReport2023 - go to menu,
following company segmentation attributes: select benchmarks - embedded SaaS Performance
1) Company Size; 2) Average Annual Contract Value; CY-23
3) Distribution Model; 4) Target Customer Market;
5) Solution Type; 6) Go-To-Market Motion; 7) Primary Any questions on the benchmarks,
Financing Source; and 8) Company HQ location. data capture process or data analysis can
be directed to ray@benchmarket.ai
All data collected is anonymized, aggregated and
normalized to exclude any outliers that are greater
than two standard deviations from the mean.
For context, we have provided some historical
benchmarks for 2019, 2020, and 2021
For illustration purposes, we have also provided
select elements of the more granular, broader and
context-based benchmarks that are available in an
interactive session at:
bit.ly/SaaSBenchmarksReport2023
BENCHMARK SUMMARY Growth Rate
42%
39%
30%
23%
Growth rates decreased in 2022
Growth rates in 2022 decreased to a median of 30% for
the entire population. Growth rates decreased in the 2H-
22 due to decreased win rates, longer sales cycles and
FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22
the increasingly cautious capital environment
Rule of 40
42%
Rule of 40 experienced a reduction in 2022
After experiencing a strong increase in 2021, the Rule
25% 25%
of 40 decreased reflecting the reduced growth rates in
2022 and the delayed, meaningful decrease in operating 15%
expenses until 1H-23
CAC Payback Period saw a slight increase due to FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22

reduced close rates in 2H-22 and lower new ARR
CAC Payback Period is directly impacted by the velocity CAC Payback Period
of new ARR which experienced a reduction in 2H22 and (# of months)
19
operating expense reductions did not keep pace until late 18
16 17
Q422 and Q123
Net Revenue Retention was level to 2022,

while Gross Revenue Retention experienced
FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22
a slight increase
Net Revenue Retention Rates continued to be a top Net Revenue Retention & Gross Revenue Retention
priority in 2022, though it appears that expansion ARR 104% 105% 105%
103%
experienced the same reduced velocity and win rates in 87% 87% 89%
87%
2H22 that impacted New ARR
FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22
5
Net Revenue Retention Gross Revenue Retention
RULE OF 40
GROWTH RATE + EBITDA
6
RevOps Squared // Benchmarkit
‘23 BENCHMARK REPORT
RULE OF 40
INSIGHTS
Rule of 40
(2019-2022)
50
Rule of 40 benchmarks for the entire population 42%
decreased in 2022 across the majority of cohorts

40
Rule of 40 was driven by a decrease in growth rates

versus 2021, and also by decreased EBITDA across 30 25% 25%
the total population of participants
20
EBITDA pressures increased in the scaling stages of 15%
companies ($5M - $100M), and increased significantly

in the > $100M ARR cohort 10
In contrast, between January 2022 and June 2023 the

Rule of 40 correlation to public B2B SaaS companies 0
FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22
Enterprise Value:NTM Revenue multiples has
experienced large swings as measured by R-Squared:
Rule of 40 R2 in January, 2022 = .14

Rule of 40 R2 in July, 2022 = .38
Rule of 40 R2 in January, 2023 = .44
Rule of 40 R2 in June, 2023 = .17

7
RULE OF 40
INSIGHTS
Rule of 40
by Revenue (2022)
Rule of 40 is often artificially elevated by the higher growth
rates found in the < $5M ARR cohort. As such Rule of 40 is
not an instructive metric for this cohort. Product market fit,
is the priority in this cohort, with an initial focus on customer
acquisition repeatability and then revenue growth efficiency
as companies scale from $5M to $10 and above
Rule of 40 is pressured in the “scale stage” of growth which

is reflected by the lower results in the $5M - $50M ARR
cohorts
Rule of 40 results in the $5M - $20M have the largest

variance between 25th percentile and 75th percentile which
highlights the increasing differences in those companies
which find the balance between product market fit,
repeatable growth and thus growth efficiency.
Rule of 40 Formula:
Year over Year Growth Rate (%) + Free Cash Flow* (%)
*EBITDA can be used in place of Free Cash Flow

8
N = 569
RULE OF 40
INSIGHTS
Rule of 40 – by ACV
(2022)
The Rule of 40 is not as correlated to Annual Contract
Value (ACV) as it is to company size
The $5K - $10K ACV results were biased by the small

number of companies in the cohort, which exhibited a
wider larger deviation than in most segments
Based upon an R-Squared analysis, there was not a

significant correlation between ACV and Rule of 40
The Rule of 40 is a hallmark of a B2B SaaS company’s

enterprise value, which has traditionally been based
upon a multiple of the next twelve months (NTM)
revenue, versus the traditional price to earnings ratio
used in more mature industries and markets
N = 569 RevOps Squared // Benchmarkit

9
COMPANY GROWTH
RATE INSIGHTS
Company Growth Rate
(2019 – 2022)
Growth rates fell from the hyper growth levels in
2021 and is closer to the reduced levels of growth
42% experienced in 2020. Growth rates decreased
44
39% across every company size with a median growth
rate of 30% in 2022 versus 42% in 2021
33 30% Growth rates were most challenged in the $20M -

$50M cohort which represents the segment with the
23% highest growth efficiency metrics across the board
22
Analyzing the growth rate benchmarks should
be done based upon similar like companies that
share your company attributes – not just against
11
competitors, rather all companies with a similar
size, annual contract value, distribution model and
target customers
0
FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22

N = 690 10
COMPANY GROWTH
RATE INSIGHTS
Company Growth Rate - by Revenue

Company growth rates across all segments faced (2022)
headwinds, including the pullback in SaaS spending in
2H-22 and continuing into 1H-23
Unlike 2021, in 2022 companies in the $50M - $100M

range did not see a re-acceleration of growth when
compared to those companies in the $20M - $50M
ARR range
Measuring and optimizing CAC efficiency metrics in

combination with an increased focused on expansion ARR
as a percentage of total growth ARR is prudent in 2023’
Growth rates returned in Q2-23 to be the top metric

impacting enterprise value after losing the top correlation
spot to Rule of 40 in Q4-22 as measured by R-Squared
Growth Rate R2 to Enterprise Value = .41 (Q2-22)

Growth Rate R2 to Enterprise Value = .31 (Q2-23)
Rule of 40 R2 to Enterprise Value = .44 (Q4-22)

Rule of 40 R2 to Enterprise Value = .17 (Q2-23)

11
N = 690
PLANNED 2023
GROWTH RATE
INSIGHTS
Planned Growth Rate - by Revenue
(2022 actuals vs 2023 plan)
It was widely reported that leading into 2023 companies
were aggressively planning for reduced growth rates and
reduced operating expenses to extend cash runways
It was interesting to see that even though it was

common to see reductions in Marketing and Sales
expenses, that every segment except for companies in
the < $1M ARR and > $100M ARR segments planned for
similar or higher growth rates in 2023
We will be launching a micro survey in July, 2023 to

capture 1H-23 actual growth rates – but across 1,880
companies that participated in this year’s research –
see level or higher growth rates was the most
surprising finding

12
‘23 BENCHMARK REPORT N = 690
CUSTOMER ACQUISITION
BENCHMARKS
13
CAC PAYBACK PERIOD
CAC Payback Period INSIGHTS
(2019 – 2022)
40
CAC Payback Period:
30 Sales and Marketing Expenses

----------------------------------------------------------- x 12
New CARR x Gross Margin
19 months
20 18 months
17 months
16 months CAC Payback Period across the entire population increased
to 17 months at median representing a one month increase
from last year’s benchmark
10
CAC Payback Period is specific to new customer logo

acquisition and is not impacted by existing customer
expansion ARR
0
FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22
CAC Payback Period is most highly correlated to annual

contract value, and Sales and Marketing expenses.
Due to the different mix of companies participating in each

year’s benchmarking research, it is important to analyze CAC
Payback Period by both ACV and company size

14
CAC PAYBACK PERIOD
INSIGHTS CAC Payback Period
By ACV (2022)
CAC Payback Period should not be viewed as an

average or median across the entire population as
Annual Contract Value is the attribute that has the
highest correlation to the median result
Common wisdom that suggests the target CAC Payback

Period is “12-months” is outdated and void of the
context that makes this metric valuable
CAC Payback period should be evaluated in combination

with the New CAC Ratio, Customer Lifetime Value and
Gross Revenue Retention to determine the efficiency of
acquiring and then retaining a segment of customers
Segment based analysis of the CAC Payback Period

by not only ACV but also customer segment and
geographic region will shed additional insights into
a company’s customer acquisition and associated
retention efficacy

15
N = 544 ‘23 BENCHMARK REPORT
CAC Payback Period CAC PAYBACK PERIOD
By Revenue (2022)
INSIGHTS
CAC Payback Period exhibits some level of correlation

to company size which is reflected in the CAC Ratios
segmented by company size
CAC Payback Period should always be calculated on a

Gross Margin adjusted basis
CAC Payback Period can fluctuate month over month

in enterprise and commercial markets if one month or
one quarter includes a few deals that are well outside of
normal ACV ranges, such as an elephant deal that is 2x
– 3x the average ACV
CAC Payback Period is best measured over a rolling

three, six and twelve month time frame to normalize
any single month or quarter’s exceptions

16
CLTV: CAC RATIO
CLTV: CAC Ratio
INSIGHTS by Revenue (2022)
Customer Lifetime Value:CAC Ratio
(ARPA x Gross Margin)/Churn Rate

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer Acquisition Cost
Common wisdom developed five – ten years ago

suggested that a 3X result is a target CLTV:CAC Ratio
Over the past three years, the benchmark across the

total population has ranged between 3.6x – 4.2x
Company Size (ARR) nor Annual Contract Value (ACV)

has a material impact on this metric
A key to this metric is that at least 1 - 2 agreement

renewal cycles should have past to establish a more
reliable churn rate across renewal periods

17
CLTV: CAC Ratio CLTV: CAC RATIO
By ACV (2022) INSIGHTS
Customer Lifetime Value (CLTV) to Customer

Acquisition Cost (CAC) ratio is widely varied based upon
ACV in this year’s benchmark reports
Customer Lifetime Value is a multi-variable metric that

requires a granular understanding of Average Revenue
Per Account (ARPA), Average Customer Acquisition
Cost, churn rate and gross margin. This multi-variable
structure makes the CLTV:CAC Ratio a favorite of
investors due to its inclusion of acquisition, retention,
expansion and product delivery efficacy metrics
Understanding the 2-3 leading indicators that directly

impact the lagging indicators included in this metric is
critical to increasing a company’s CLTV:CAC Ratio

18
CAC RATIO DEFINITION
CAC Ratio measures the efficiency of:

- Acquiring new customer ARR
- Expanding existing customer ARR
- Growing ARR excluding down-sells and churn
The two CAC Ratios included in this report are:
Blended CAC Ratio
Sales and Marketing Expenses

------------------------------------------------------------------
New Customer ARR + Expansion ARR
New CAC Ratio
Sales and Marketing Expenses

------------------------------------------------------------------
New Customer ARR
CAC Ratio is an alternative revenue efficiency metric to

the SaaS Magic number as it provides a more granular
and segmented perspective on the efficiency of New
customer ARR vs Existing customer expansion ARR
It is interesting to note that “Blended CAC Ratio” slightly

decreased while “New CAC Ratio” increased which
reflects the findings in the Expansion ARR vs New ARR
as a percentage of total growth ARR – where expansion
ARR was a higher contributor in 2022 at a lower cost

19
BLENDED CAC RATIO
Blended CAC Ratio INSIGHTS
By Revenue (2022)
Blended CAC Ratio is the inverse of the SaaS Magic

Number, and only includes the expenses required to
acquire one dollar of new ARR from a new customer and a
dollar of ARR growth from an existing customer – thus not
including the impact of down-sells or churn
The Blended CAC Ratio provides an easy to understand

metric that tells you “how much Sales and Marketing
expense” is required to add $1 ARR from the combination
of new customer acquisition and existing customer
expansion
Blended CAC Ratio is traditionally the highest as

companies traverse the growth phase of $20M - $50M
ARR, often in correlation to the need to expand into new
customer segments, geographic markets and/or introduce
new products
Due to the higher CAC Ratios experienced when first

entering new markets, calculating CAC Ratio on a segment
by segment basis, such as Enterprise vs SMB is required
to understand the efficiency of each market segment

20
Blended CAC Ratio
BLENDED CAC RATIO BY ACV (2022)
INSIGHTS
Blended CAC Ratio is traditionally higher when the

Average Annual Contract Value (ACV) increases –
which is reflected in this year’s benchmarking research
The expense required to acquire a dollar of ARR in

higher ACV segments increases, which is typically
off-set by higher Customer Lifetime Value and higher
retention rates
Since Blended CAC Ratio is a compound growth

efficiency metric, it is important to also calculate the
New CAC Ratio and Expansion CAC Ratio
CAC Ratio is not typically calculated on a Gross Margin

adjusted basis, but as a company scales to $50M
ARR, understanding the contribution for each dollar of
growth ARR after accounting for COGS is a next level
metric to calculate

21
N = 288
NEW CAC RATIO
New CAC Ratio INSIGHTS
By Revenue (2022)
New CAC Ratio tells you how much Sales and Marketing
expense is required to add $1 ARR from new name
customers
New CAC Ratio increased across the board in 2022, with

a median at $1.76, which is an increase of $.16 (10%)
over the previous year
New CAC Ratio typically increase as companies cross

$20M ARR, often in correlation to the need to expand
into new customer segments, geographic markets and/
or introduce new products
Due to the higher CAC Ratios when first entering and/

or scaling new markets, calculating the New CAC Ratio
on a segment-by-segment basis, such as Enterprise vs
SMB is highly instructive to understand the efficiency of
acquiring new customer ARR in new markets

22
NEW CAC RATIO
INSIGHTS New CAC Ratio
BY ACV (2022)
The New CAC Ratio typically trends higher based upon

the Average Annual Contract Value (ACV)
This year, the $10K - $50K cohort both have a lower

New CAC Ratio than the $5K - $10K ACV segment -
which is reflective of the challenges in the $5K -$10K
ACV cohort
New CAC Ratio for higher ACV segments should be

analyzed in concert with Customer Lifetime Value
(CLTV), Gross Revenue Retention, Net Revenue
Retention and CLTV:CAC Ratio. This comprehensive
approach provides a more rounded picture to
determine if increasing investments to acquire higher
ACV deals provides increased CLTV returns
Experimenting with lower cost customer acquisition

methods, including Product-Led Growth or simply
lower cost, inside sales or even full cycle Account
Executives instead of the SDR + AE model can result
in reducing the New CAC Ratio

23
N = 144
SAAS MAGIC NUMBER
INSIGHTS
SaaS Magic Number SaaS Magic Number is a traditional SaaS

Performance Metric that measures the overall
By Revenue (2022) efficiency of ARR growth
Current Qtr ARR - Previous Qtr ARR

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = Magic Number
Previous Qtr Sales and Marketing Expenses
Unlike the Blended CAC Ratio which measures

the efficiency of “New Growth” as measured by
New Customer ARR Growth and Existing Customer
Expansion Growth without including the impact of
down-sells or churned ARR, the SaaS Magic Number
includes the impact of churned ARR and down-sell ARR
The reason the Blended CAC Ratio is our preferred ARR

growth efficiency metric is it best enables executives
to understand how much Marketing and Sales
investment is required to acquire one dollar of new
ARR or expansion ARR
The traditional SaaS Magic Number minimum

threshold is .75 – which says that $1.00 of Sales and
Marketing investment is required to generate $.75
of ARR growth

24
N = 296
SAAS MAGIC NUMBER
INSIGHTS SaaS Magic Number
By ACV
The majority of Customer Acquisition Cost efficiency

metrics exhibit a lower efficiency in high value ACV
deals, and higher efficiency for lower value ACV deals
In contrast, the SaaS Magic Number is NOT a customer

acquisition cost efficiency metric, it is an ARR growth
efficiency metric which is impacted by several non CAC
related input variables including:
- Churned ARR
- Down-Sell ARR
- Existing Customer ARR
The traditional threshold is that the SaaS Magic

Number should be .75 or higher to justify incremental
investments in Sales – which essentially says that
with $1.00 of Sales and Marketing investment you can
generate $.75 of ARR growth

25
CUSTOMER RETENTION
BENCHMARKS
26
Gross & Net Revenue Retention NET & GROSS REVENUE
2019-2022
RETENTION INSIGHTS
110 104% 105% 103%
103%
89%
87% 87% 87%
88
Gross Revenue Retention (GRR) had remained stable
over the last three years, but experienced a 2% increase
66 this year to 89%
Net Revenue Retention across the primary participant

44
cohort in North America remained level at 105%. The
total population, which included a higher percentage of
global participants this year had a median NRR of 103%
22
In the following charts on NRR in this report, we use the

0
United States total population NRR of 105%, though the
2020
2019 2021 2022 global population highlighted NRR at 103%
Per the above, our analysis did highlight that NRR

was level year over year in North America (105%), but
Net Revenue Retention Gross Revenue Retention was lower in the rest of world which was the primary
contributor to the total population NRR of 103%

27
GROSS REVENUE Gross Revenue Retention
By Revenue (2022)
RETENTION INSIGHTS
Gross Revenue Retention (GRR), also known as Gross

Dollar Retention (GDR) does not traditionally vary
materially based upon company size
However, in earlier stage companies (< $2.5M) we often

find retention rates are inflated due to the lack of 1-2
renewal cycles being available – as such we suggest that
the most reliable GRR benchmarks begin at the $5M and
above segments
Measuring retention using a revenue based approach

(GRR) versus a logo based approach provides a better
picture of customer retention, especially in ACV levels
greater than $5K - $10K

28
Gross Revenue Retention GROSS REVENUE
By ACV (2022)
RETENTION INSIGHTS
Gross Revenue Retention (GRR) is more correlated to

average annual contract value (ACV) than company size
ACV’s lower than $5K will typically produce a lower GRR

result than higher value solutions. Interestingly, ACVs
between $10K - $50K do not see a material difference
in GRR
Gross Revenue Retention calculations should be

calculated using only those customers that have an
agreement available to renew (ATR). Including all
agreements and associated ARR that is not available
to renew in the period of calculation will produce an
artificially inflated GRR calculation

29
CUSTOMER EXPANSION
BENCHMARKS
30
Net Dollar Retention - U.S. NET DOLLAR RETENTION
By Revenue (2022)
INSIGHTS
Net Revenue Retention (NRR), also known as Net Dollar

Retention (NDR) measures how much ARR there is in a
cohort of customers at the end of an accounting period
versus at the beginning of the accounting period, when
their agreement is available to renew (on not) versus
their ARR from a previous period
Net Revenue Retention is typically an annualized

calculation, and should be calculated on a rolling 3, 6
and 12 month period
NRR is not materially correlated to company size, as it

is with other variables including Go-To-Market motion
(Product-Led Growth vs Sales-Led Growth) and pricing
model (pure subscription versus Usage-Based Pricing)
NRR calculations need to account for the impact

of certain variable such as the ramp time in Usage-
Based Pricing models, requiring a consistent policy for
when new customer ARR ends and existing customer
expansion ARR begins

31
NET DOLLAR RETENTION
INSIGHTS Net Dollar Retention - U.S.
BY ACV (2022)
Net Revenue Retention exhibits a higher correlation to

Annual Contract Value (ACV) than to company size
As ACV increases, the opportunity for expansion is

more prevalent, though not as correlated as GTM
motion and pricing
Another factor in Net Revenue Retention is the breadth

of the product portfolio, the pricing has built- in
escalators based upon usage or product feature
Net Revenue Retention had increased over the past

three years, but remained level in North America
in 2022

32
N = 588
Expansion ARR to Total Growth ARR EXPANSION ARR TO TOTAL
By ARR (2022)
GROWTH ARR INSIGHTS
Expansion ARR as a percentage of Total Growth ARR was

a new benchmark last year – so this is only our second
year publishing this benchmark
Expansion ARR
Expansion % = ------------------------------------------------
New + Expansion ARR
In 2021, this benchmark represented the historical

benchmark of 30% while this year has increased by 3% to
33% (a 10% YoY increase)
Moreover, we are seeing that larger companies can gain

operating leverage and increase NRR with their median
contribution of expansion ARR being 42% in the $20M -
$50M cohort and 45% in the $50M - $100M cohort
As expansion ARR is often 2x – 3x more efficient to

acquire – expansion ARR is a top priority in this period of
the increased importance of growth efficiency

33
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY
BENCHMARKS
34
GROSS MARGIN
INSIGHTS
Gross Margin - Total
2022
Total Gross Margin, which represents the blend of
Subscription Gross Margin and Services Gross Margin
is a hallmark of the cash generation potential of a SaaS
business model
Though services can often stand alone in the value

delivered during the initial deployment of a SaaS
solution, especially technical integrations, data
preparation, training and on-boarding, it is often
delivered at lower margin levels to increase the
percentage of available budget for ARR
Total Gross Margin is typically lower than Subscription

Gross Margin due to the impact of professional
services and the mix
We did not collect enough “Professional Services

Margin” data this year to publish a separate
benchmark, but suffice it to say that Total Gross Margin
at 72% was almost 10% lower than Subscription Gross
margin highlighting the downward pressure
of Professional Services margin

35
Gross Margin - Subscriptions SUBSCRIPTION GROSS
2022
MARGIN INSIGHTS
Subscription gross margin, which is calculated by

dividing the Gross Profit specific to subscription
revenue by the total subscription GAAP revenue is a
hallmark of the potential for cash generation in the
SaaS business model
Subscription Gross Margin is traditionally stable

across company size, though can be dramatically
different based upon the scale of revenue in Usage-
Based Pricing model companies with high compute
resources. This is often the case in big data, machine
learning, and AI centric solutions

36
SALES AND MARKETING
Sales and Marketing
EXPENSES INSIGHTS Expenses % of Revenue
By Revenue (2022)
Sales and Marketing expenses decreased across the

entire population from 36% last year to a median
of 34% in this year’s benchmarks
The $20M - $50M ARR segment experienced the

greatest reduction from 54% in 2021 to 35% at median
– highlighting increased focus on efficiency in 2H-22
In companies that scale above $50M ARR, the Sales

and Marketing expenses will typically increase as a %
of revenue, but need to be viewed in context of both
Growth Rate and the Rule of 40
As such, Sales and Marketing expenses as a

percentage of revenue should be viewed in context
of Customer Acquisition and Customer Expansion
efficiency metrics such as the CAC Ratio, CAC Payback
Period and CLTV:CAC Ratio in context of profitable
growth as measured by the Rule of 40

37
Sales and Marketing
Expenses % of Revenue SALES AND MARKETING
By ACV (2022) EXPENSES INSIGHTS
Sales and Marketing expenses as a percentage of revenue

does not have a high correlation to the Average Annual
Contract Value (ACV)
A more interesting and granular view of this metric is the

mix of Sales expenses versus Marketing expenses based
upon ACV, which we did not collect in this research
Lower ACV solutions will typically see a higher percentage

of Marketing Expenses, where as in larger ACV solutions,
beginning at $10K ACV the percentage of Sales expenses
compared to the total Sales + Marketing Expenses will be
in the 68% - 74% range

38
R&D EXPENSES
INSIGHTS R&D Expenses % of Revenue
By Revenue (2022)
Research and Development (R&D), often referred to

as the development or engineering department is
foundational to any early-stage SaaS company
As such, for any company with less than $1M ARR,

R&D as a percentage of revenue is not as relevant,
especially in technical led founder companies, where
their salary can have a significant impact
As companies scale to $50M ARR and above, the R&D

investment is normally in the 21% - 30% range – in this
year’s research that did not happen until > $100M
This year’s benchmarks show an overall increase in

R&D at median for every segment from $20M - $100M
– possibly highlighting the increased investment in
Product-Led Growth and/or new products to increase
Net Revenue Retention rates

39
G&A Expenses (% of Revenue) G&A EXPENSES
2022
INSIGHTS
General and Administrative expenses as a percentage of

revenue are typically higher in the early stage of a SaaS
company’s evolution, especially when the founder/CEO
is taking a salary
G&A at 24% of revenue at median is consistent with last

year’s benchmarks and reflects the larger percentage of
< $20M ARR companies in the population mix
As companies scale to each subsequent levels of ARR,

G&A will typically normalize in the 14% - 20% range
One potential impact to G&A as a percentage of revenue

is when expenses such as office, travel, and benefits are
captured in G&A versus at the department level

40
CAPITAL EFFICIENCY
BENCHMARKS
41
ARR TO CAPITAL RAISED
ARR to Capital Raised Ratio INSIGHTS
By Revenue (2022)
Annual Recurring Revenue to Capital Raised is an

investor centric metric that provides insight into capital
efficiency. This metric should be evaluated in context of
the stage of growth, and the growth rate
The ultimate goal is to have an ARR to Capital Raised

ratio above 1.0 and in a VC backed company this
most often is reached at the $50M and above range –
depending on growth rates targeted and achieved
In high or hyper growth companies, the return on capital

as measured by ARR to Capital Raised will play a
secondary role to growth rates and Enterprise Value to
Revenue multiples
Though there are fairly stable and predictable benchmarks

for ARR to Capital Raised, this is not a metric that operators
should invest a lot of time in regards to operating decisions
beyond Cash Runway and the Burn Multiple

42
BURN MULTIPLE
INSIGHTS
Burn Multiple
By Revenue (2022)
The Burn Multiple – first introduced by David Sacks
at Craft Ventures is a capital efficiency metric that
measures how much capital is being consumed to
grow each dollar of ARR
Net Burn
Burn Multiple = ------------------------------
Net New ARR
Companies that have a burn multiple under 1.0x are

typically viewed as the most capital efficient growth
companies, while those in the 1.0 – 1.5 are still
considered good. A burn multiple above 1.5 is a
point of caution and above 2 is typically a concern
to investors
It is rare to find VC backed companies with a

negative burn multiple and when it does, it is in a rare
“bootstrapped” company that achieves growth rates
and the scale typically found in venture backed
B2B SaaS companies

43
BENCHMARK PARTICIPANT
COMPANY PROFILE
44
Participant Company Profile
45
46
47
INTERACTIVE BENCHMARKING
PLATFORM OVERVIEW
48
How to use SaaSKPIBenchmarks.com
Four steps to see how your company measures up
DISCLOSURES RevOps Squared, now doing business as
Benchmarkit™ conducted industry benchmark
research on SaaS Performance Metrics with
the explicit permission and approval by all
survey and research participants.
Benchmarkit™ has worked with multiple partners to

syndicate our research. The material contained herein
is based on sources considered to be reliable;
however, Benchmarkit™ does not guarantee or
warrant the accuracy or completeness of information.
This document is for informational purposes only.
This communication is intended solely for the use by

the recipient. The recipient agrees not to forward or
copy the information to any other person outside of
their organization without the express written
consent of RevOps Squared LLC dba as Benchmarkit™
If you would like to request additional information

regarding this research and available additional data
and/or advisory services as to how this information
can be captured, utilized and/or evaluated in any
other manner please send all inquiries to
ray@benchmarkit.ai

B2B SaaS Metrics Benchmark 2023 REPORT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

B2B SaaS Metrics Benchmark 2023 REPORT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

B2B SaaS Metrics Benchmark 2023 REPORT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

B2B SaaS METRICS

Summary Interactive Benchmarks:

2023 BENCHMARK Venture Capital, M&A Advisory firms, B2B SaaS

CAC Payback Period saw a slight increase due to FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22

Q422 and Q123

Net Revenue Retention was level to 2022,

Rule of 40 benchmarks for the entire population 42%

decreased in 2022 across the majority of cohorts

Rule of 40 was driven by a decrease in growth rates

companies ($5M - $100M), and increased significantly

In contrast, between January 2022 and June 2023 the

Rule of 40 R2 in January, 2022 = .14

RevOps Squared // Benchmarkit

Rule of 40 is pressured in the “scale stage” of growth which

Rule of 40 results in the $5M - $20M have the largest

*EBITDA can be used in place of Free Cash Flow

RevOps Squared // Benchmarkit

The $5K - $10K ACV results were biased by the small

Based upon an R-Squared analysis, there was not a

The Rule of 40 is a hallmark of a B2B SaaS company’s

N = 569 RevOps Squared // Benchmarkit

33 30% Growth rates were most challenged in the $20M -

RevOps Squared // Benchmarkit

Company Growth Rate - by Revenue

Unlike 2021, in 2022 companies in the $50M - $100M

Measuring and optimizing CAC efficiency metrics in

Growth rates returned in Q2-23 to be the top metric

Growth Rate R2 to Enterprise Value = .41 (Q2-22)

Rule of 40 R2 to Enterprise Value = .44 (Q4-22)

RevOps Squared // Benchmarkit

It was interesting to see that even though it was

We will be launching a micro survey in July, 2023 to

RevOps Squared // Benchmarkit

CAC Payback Period:

30 Sales and Marketing Expenses

CAC Payback Period is specific to new customer logo

CAC Payback Period is most highly correlated to annual

Due to the different mix of companies participating in each

RevOps Squared // Benchmarkit

CAC Payback Period should not be viewed as an

Common wisdom that suggests the target CAC Payback

CAC Payback period should be evaluated in combination

Segment based analysis of the CAC Payback Period

RevOps Squared // Benchmarkit

CAC Payback Period exhibits some level of correlation

CAC Payback Period should always be calculated on a

CAC Payback Period can fluctuate month over month

CAC Payback Period is best measured over a rolling

RevOps Squared // Benchmarkit

Customer Lifetime Value:CAC Ratio

(ARPA x Gross Margin)/Churn Rate

Common wisdom developed five – ten years ago

Over the past three years, the benchmark across the

Company Size (ARR) nor Annual Contract Value (ACV)

A key to this metric is that at least 1 - 2 agreement

RevOps Squared // Benchmarkit

Customer Lifetime Value (CLTV) to Customer

Customer Lifetime Value is a multi-variable metric that

Understanding the 2-3 leading indicators that directly

RevOps Squared // Benchmarkit