[ { "rogueId": "customers.gross_revenue_retention", "slug": "gross_revenue_retention", "domain": "customers", "defaultLabel": "Gross Revenue Retention (GRR)", "description": "Recurring revenue retained from the cohort of customers present at the start of the period, excluding expansion — so the metric captures only churn and contraction. Per the SaaS Metrics Standards Board (SMSB) GRR standard. GRR is bounded at 100% (cannot exceed it) and reads as the \"no-defense-against-churn\" floor on retention. The board reads GRR alongside NRR (`customers.net_revenue_retention`) — the gap between them is the expansion contribution. Common pitfall: treating GRR and NRR as substitutes — they answer fundamentally different questions, and a healthy NRR with sliding GRR signals churn masked by upsell.", "fieldType": "percentage", "unit": "%", "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC", "public" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "Finance", "Sales" ], "stageRelevance": { "seriesA": "core", "seriesB": "core", "seriesC": "core", "public": "core" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "SaaS Metrics Standards Board", "sourceUrl": "https://www.saasmetricsboard.com/gross-revenue-retention", "sectionRef": "GRR", "publicationDate": "2023-01-01", "attributionNotice": "Metric definitions reference standards published by the SaaS Metrics Standards Board (saasmetricsboard.com). imboard is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or a member of SMSB." }, "benchmark": { "p25": 82, "median": 91, "p75": 95, "unit": "%", "sourceName": "KBCM/Sapphire SaaS Survey 2024 (15th Annual)", "sourceYear": "2024", "higherIsBetter": true }, "formula": "GRR = (Starting ARR − Contraction − Churn) ÷ Starting ARR, on the cohort active at period start. Excludes expansion. Capped at 100% by definition. Per SMSB GRR standard.", "whyItMatters": "Isolates the \"do customers stay and not shrink\" signal from expansion noise. GRR is the true downside floor on retention — boards use it to spot product or onboarding deterioration that NRR can hide.", "interpretationGuidance": "Per KBCM/Sapphire Private SaaS Company Survey 2024 (§ \"Gross Dollar Retention\"), private SaaS GRR medians typically sit in the high-80s to low-90s, with top-quartile in the mid-90s — distributions vary by ACV cohort and vintage, so pull the current edition. The NRR − GRR gap quantifies expansion contribution; a widening gap with declining GRR is a yellow flag (expansion masking churn). Trend it quarterly — a single-period drop with steady NRR usually means a one-off contraction; persistent decline with flat NRR is a product issue.", "relatedKpiIds": [ "customers.net_revenue_retention", "customers.logo_retention_rate", "customers.logo_churn_rate", "customers.churn_risks", "sales.arr" ] }, { "rogueId": "customers.logo_churn_rate", "slug": "logo_churn_rate", "domain": "customers", "defaultLabel": "Logo Churn Rate", "description": "Share of customer logos lost during the period — the inverse of logo retention. Numerator is logos that churned during the period; denominator is logos present at period start. Per the KBCM/Sapphire Private SaaS Company Survey definition (treated as the de-facto private-SaaS reporting convention). The board reads this as the simplest churn signal — independent of revenue-weighting. Common pitfall: confusing annualized vs. period-rate (monthly churn × 12 ≠ annualized churn for a compounding base) — be explicit about the time window and annualization method.", "fieldType": "percentage", "unit": "%", "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC", "public" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "Sales" ], "stageRelevance": { "seriesA": "core", "seriesB": "core", "seriesC": "core", "public": "core" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "KBCM/Sapphire SaaS Survey 2024 (15th Annual)", "sourceUrl": "https://www.cfodesk.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024_kbcm_sapphire_saas_survey.pdf", "sectionRef": "Logo Churn", "publicationDate": "2024-09-01", "attributionNotice": null }, "benchmark": { "p25": 5, "median": 13, "p75": 20, "unit": "%", "sourceName": "KBCM/Sapphire SaaS Survey 2024 (15th Annual)", "sourceYear": "2024", "higherIsBetter": false }, "formula": "logo_churn_rate = customers_churned ÷ (customers active at period start). Mathematically: 1 − logo_retention_rate. Annualization for monthly/quarterly rates should be explicit (e.g. (1 − monthly_retention)^12, not monthly_churn × 12).", "whyItMatters": "Direct read on whether customers are walking away. Independent of revenue-weighting, so it cannot be masked by a few large expansions.", "interpretationGuidance": "Per KBCM/Sapphire Private SaaS Company Survey 2024 (§ \"Customer Churn\"), private SaaS logo churn typically sits in the high single digits annually, with top-quartile below 5% — but distributions are highly sensitive to ACV cohort (low-ACV SMB SaaS routinely sees 20%+ annual logo churn; six-figure enterprise contracts often see <3%). Pull the current vintage rather than citing a stale point estimate. Pair with `customers_churned` (absolute count) and `gross_revenue_retention` (revenue-weighted view).", "relatedKpiIds": [ "customers.logo_retention_rate", "customers.customers_churned", "customers.gross_revenue_retention", "customers.net_revenue_retention", "customers.churn_risks" ] }, { "rogueId": "customers.logo_retention_rate", "slug": "logo_retention_rate", "domain": "customers", "defaultLabel": "Logo Retention Rate", "description": "Share of customer logos retained from the prior period, counted by logo (not by revenue). Per the SaaS Metrics Standards Board (SMSB) Logo Retention standard: numerator is logos present at both period start and period end; denominator is logos present at period start. New logos acquired during the period are excluded from both. The board reads this as a \"stickiness\" signal independent of ACV: high logo retention with weak NRR points to flat/contracting expansion; weak logo retention with strong NRR points to high concentration risk. Common pitfall: conflating logo retention with revenue retention — they answer different questions and routinely diverge.", "fieldType": "percentage", "unit": "%", "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC", "public" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "Sales" ], "stageRelevance": { "seriesA": "core", "seriesB": "core", "seriesC": "core", "public": "core" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "SaaS Metrics Standards Board", "sourceUrl": "https://www.saasmetricsboard.com/logo-retention", "sectionRef": "Logo Retention", "publicationDate": "2023-01-01", "attributionNotice": "Metric definitions reference standards published by the SaaS Metrics Standards Board (saasmetricsboard.com). imboard is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or a member of SMSB." }, "formula": "logo_retention_rate = (logos active at period start AND active at period end) ÷ (logos active at period start). Excludes net-new logos acquired in-period. Per SMSB Logo Retention standard.", "whyItMatters": "Isolates retention quality from revenue-weighting effects. A handful of large expansions can mask high logo churn in NRR — logo retention surfaces it directly.", "interpretationGuidance": "Per KBCM/Sapphire Private SaaS Company Survey 2024, private SaaS logo retention concentrates in the high-80s to mid-90s (median around 90% for the broad sample, higher for enterprise contract ACVs). Treat distributional ranges as period- and segment-specific; pull the current vintage of the source rather than relying on a memorized number. Pair every value with `logo_churn_rate` (1 − this) for the inverse view and `customers_churned` for the absolute count.", "relatedKpiIds": [ "customers.logo_churn_rate", "customers.customers_churned", "customers.gross_revenue_retention", "customers.net_revenue_retention" ] }, { "rogueId": "customers.net_revenue_retention", "slug": "net_revenue_retention", "domain": "customers", "defaultLabel": "Net Revenue Retention (NRR)", "description": "Recurring revenue retained from the cohort of customers present at the start of the period, including expansion (upsell, cross-sell, price increases) and net of churn and contraction — but excluding revenue from net-new logos acquired in-period. Per the SaaS Metrics Standards Board (SMSB) NRR standard. NRR above 100% means the cohort grew faster than it lost — a hallmark of strong product-led expansion. The board reads NRR alongside GRR (`customers.gross_revenue_retention`) to separate the \"keep + expand\" signal from the \"just keep\" signal. Common pitfall: mixing GAAP revenue and ARR in numerator vs. denominator, or letting net-new logo revenue leak in — both inflate the number; SMSB is explicit that the cohort is closed at period start.", "fieldType": "percentage", "unit": "%", "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC", "public" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "Finance", "Sales" ], "stageRelevance": { "seriesA": "core", "seriesB": "core", "seriesC": "core", "public": "core" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "SaaS Metrics Standards Board", "sourceUrl": "https://www.saasmetricsboard.com/net-revenue-retention", "sectionRef": "NRR", "publicationDate": "2023-01-01", "attributionNotice": "Metric definitions reference standards published by the SaaS Metrics Standards Board (saasmetricsboard.com). imboard is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or a member of SMSB." }, "benchmark": { "p25": 96, "median": 101, "p75": 109, "unit": "%", "sourceName": "KBCM/Sapphire SaaS Survey 2024 (15th Annual)", "sourceYear": "2024", "higherIsBetter": true }, "formula": "NRR = (Starting ARR + Expansion − Contraction − Churn) ÷ Starting ARR, measured on the cohort active at period start. New-logo ARR acquired in-period is excluded from both numerator and denominator. Per SMSB NRR standard.", "whyItMatters": "The single best read on whether existing customers love the product enough to pay more over time. Strong NRR (>100%) compounds — it lets growth come from inside the install base, lowering reliance on new-logo acquisition and improving capital efficiency.", "interpretationGuidance": "Per KBCM/Sapphire Private SaaS Company Survey 2024 (§ \"Net Dollar Retention\"), private SaaS NRR medians have historically clustered around the low-to-mid 100s, with top-quartile in the 110s+ — but cuts vary year-over-year and by ACV segment, so pull the current edition rather than citing a stale point estimate. Top-quartile public SaaS (per typical Bessemer State of the Cloud commentary) cite NRR ≥ ~120% as the benchmark for \"best-in-class\" expansion — treat that thresholds as industry folk-wisdom unless cited to a named edition. Always pair NRR with GRR: a wide gap means expansion is propping up underlying churn.", "relatedKpiIds": [ "customers.gross_revenue_retention", "customers.logo_retention_rate", "customers.logo_churn_rate", "customers.expansion_opportunities", "sales.arr" ] }, { "rogueId": "customers.nps_score", "slug": "nps_score", "domain": "customers", "defaultLabel": "NPS Score", "description": "Net Promoter Score — % of survey respondents who are promoters (score 9–10) minus % detractors (0–6), passives (7–8) excluded. Per the original NPS methodology (Reichheld, Bain & Company, 2003). The score ranges from −100 to +100. The board reads NPS as one read on product-market fit and word-of-mouth potential, not as a precise customer-loyalty measurement — the methodology is well-known for being sensitive to sample bias, response rate, and survey timing. Common pitfall: comparing NPS across companies without normalizing for industry — B2B SaaS NPS distributions sit much higher than consumer-app NPS, and the absolute number means little without a peer cohort.", "fieldType": "number", "unit": null, "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC", "public" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "Product", "Sales" ], "stageRelevance": { "seriesA": "core", "seriesB": "core", "seriesC": "recommended", "public": "recommended" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "Retently NPS Benchmarks 2025", "sourceUrl": "https://www.retently.com/blog/good-net-promoter-score/", "sectionRef": "NPS Benchmarks", "publicationDate": "2025-01-01", "attributionNotice": null }, "benchmark": { "p25": 20, "median": 36, "p75": 50, "unit": "count", "sourceName": "Retently NPS Benchmarks 2025", "sourceYear": "2025", "higherIsBetter": true }, "formula": "NPS = (% promoters, score 9–10) − (% detractors, score 0–6). Passives (7–8) are excluded from both. Range: −100 to +100. Per Bain & Company / Reichheld NPS methodology (HBR 2003, \"The One Number You Need to Grow\").", "whyItMatters": "A coarse-grained directional read on customer affection and word-of-mouth potential. Sustained movement (especially regressions) is the signal the board should focus on, not absolute values — the methodology is too noisy for fine comparisons across companies.", "interpretationGuidance": "Per Retently NPS Benchmarks 2025, B2B SaaS NPS medians by industry cluster around the +30 to +50 band, with top-quartile +50 to +70. Translate scores to categories: −100 to 0 = needs work, 0–30 = good, 30–70 = great, 70–100 = excellent — these category bands are widely circulated industry folk-wisdom (Bain does not publish strict thresholds). Always pair the score with sample size and response rate; an NPS based on <50 responses or <10% response rate should be flagged as low-confidence.", "relatedKpiIds": [ "customers.nps_trend", "customers.retention_insights", "customers.churn_risks", "customers.key_initiatives" ] }, { "rogueId": "finance.runway_months", "slug": "runway_months", "domain": "finance", "defaultLabel": "Runway (Months)", "description": "Estimated number of months the company can operate at the current net burn before unrestricted cash reaches zero, holding everything else constant. The single most consequential survival input for venture-backed companies — it sets the urgency of every fundraising, hiring, and cost decision. Common pitfall: runway is often quoted off `finance.total_cash_in_bank` and a single-month spot-burn instead of operationally-available cash and a 3-month-trailing burn — the result is a runway that looks 2–4 months longer than it actually is when working capital tightens. Boards should ask which cash and which burn went into the calculation.", "fieldType": "number", "unit": "months", "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "preSeed", "seed", "seriesA", "seriesB" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "Finance" ], "stageRelevance": { "preSeed": "core", "seed": "core", "seriesA": "core", "seriesB": "recommended" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "KBCM/Sapphire SaaS Survey 2024 (15th Annual)", "sourceUrl": "https://www.cfodesk.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024_kbcm_sapphire_saas_survey.pdf", "sectionRef": "Months of Cash (Runway) by ARR Cohort", "publicationDate": "2024-09-01", "attributionNotice": null }, "formula": "runway_months = max(finance.operationally_available_cash, finance.total_unrestricted_cash) / finance.net_burn_rate. When net burn is negative (cash-flow positive), runway is unbounded — render as ∞ rather than negative. Most boards use a 3-month-trailing-average net burn for the denominator to dampen single-month noise.", "whyItMatters": "Drives the timing of every fundraise, hire, and budget cut — and is the number investors lead with in diligence. Crossing under stage-typical thresholds usually triggers a board-level cost or fundraising conversation.", "interpretationGuidance": "Stage-typical industry context (per the 2024 KeyBanc Capital Markets & Sapphire Ventures SaaS Survey §runway / month-of-cash discussion): private SaaS companies with $10M–$50M year-end ARR median ~25 months of cash; those <$10M or >$50M ARR median ~18 months. Practitioner heuristics (industry folk-wisdom, not citation-grade): under 6 months is critical (immediate fundraise or cost action); 12–18 months is healthy for active fundraising; 24+ months gives optionality. Recalculate any time burn changes materially or a tranche closes.", "relatedKpiIds": [ "finance.total_cash_in_bank", "finance.total_unrestricted_cash", "finance.operationally_available_cash", "finance.net_burn_rate", "finance.burn_rate_scenarios", "fundraising.target_raise" ] }, { "rogueId": "fundraising.convertible_outstanding", "slug": "convertible_outstanding", "domain": "fundraising", "defaultLabel": "Outstanding Convertible Amount", "description": "Total principal value of SAFEs and convertible notes outstanding that have not yet converted to equity. These convert at the next priced round, typically at a discount or valuation cap (per the standard Y Combinator SAFE templates and the National Venture Capital Association convertible-note model). Common pitfall: a SAFE stack quietly accumulating between rounds can convert into 15–25% dilution at the next priced round, surprising founders who modeled \"we only sold 10% in this priced round\" math. Boards should always see the fully-diluted cap table including SAFE conversion.", "fieldType": "currency", "unit": null, "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "preSeed", "seed", "seriesA" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "Finance" ], "stageRelevance": { "preSeed": "core", "seed": "core", "seriesA": "recommended" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "Y Combinator Post-Money SAFE (2018+ standard form)", "sourceUrl": "https://www.ycombinator.com/documents", "sectionRef": "Post-Money SAFE — Definitions (Purchase Amount)", "publicationDate": "2018-09-01", "attributionNotice": null }, "formula": "Sum of principal outstanding on all unconverted convertible instruments (SAFEs per the Y Combinator post-money SAFE template; convertible notes per the NVCA Model Documents). Pre-conversion — actual dilution depends on the next-round price and the SAFE caps/discounts.", "whyItMatters": "Hidden dilution that hits at the next priced round. A material SAFE stack changes the math on what a \"20% Series A\" actually costs the founders.", "interpretationGuidance": "When `convertible_outstanding` is more than ~10% of the company's next-likely post-money valuation, the board should require a fully-diluted cap-table walk-through at the next priced round modeling exercise. Highest-cap and lowest-cap SAFE conversion paths should both be modeled.", "relatedKpiIds": [ "fundraising.pre_money_valuation", "fundraising.post_money_valuation", "fundraising.founder_dilution" ] }, { "rogueId": "fundraising.founder_dilution", "slug": "founder_dilution", "domain": "fundraising", "defaultLabel": "Founder Dilution", "description": "Percentage of founders' fully-diluted ownership that is given up in the new round, including any pre-close option-pool top-up (the \"option pool shuffle\" — option-pool expansion taken in the pre-money dilutes existing holders rather than new investors). Common pitfall: founders often quote the \"investor dilution\" (new money / post-money) and forget the option-pool top-up component. The Carta State of Private Markets quarterly reports publish stage-typical dilution ranges that boards should use as a sanity check.", "fieldType": "percentage", "unit": "%", "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "preSeed", "seed", "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "Finance" ], "stageRelevance": { "preSeed": "core", "seed": "core", "seriesA": "core", "seriesB": "core", "seriesC": "core" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "Carta State of Private Markets Q3 2025", "sourceUrl": "https://carta.com/data/state-of-private-markets-q3-2025/", "sectionRef": "Seed Round Dilution", "publicationDate": "2025-10-01", "attributionNotice": null }, "benchmark": { "p25": 12, "median": 18, "p75": 24, "unit": "%", "sourceName": "Carta State of Private Markets Q3 2025", "sourceYear": "2025", "higherIsBetter": false }, "formula": "founder_dilution_pct = (founder_shares_pre − founder_shares_post) / founder_shares_pre × 100. Includes both new-money dilution and any pre-close option-pool top-up borne in the pre-money. Per Carta State of Private Markets methodology.", "whyItMatters": "Tracks founder skin-in-the-game over time — sustained ownership matters for long-term motivation and signaling to future investors. Boards balance dilution discipline against capital needs.", "interpretationGuidance": "Per Carta State of Private Markets benchmarks, typical per-round dilution for the priced round (excluding pool top-up) is 18–22% at seed, 18–22% at A, 12–18% at B, 10–15% at C+. Out-of-band dilution either signals weak negotiating position or a strategic priced-up next-round set-up.", "relatedKpiIds": [ "fundraising.pre_money_valuation", "fundraising.post_money_valuation", "fundraising.total_round_size" ] }, { "rogueId": "fundraising.post_money_valuation", "slug": "post_money_valuation", "domain": "fundraising", "defaultLabel": "Post-Money Valuation", "description": "Company valuation immediately after the new round closes, including the new capital raised — the canonical \"valuation\" number quoted in TechCrunch headlines. Per NVCA Model Documents, post-money = pre-money + new money raised. Common pitfall: post-money math gets messy with SAFEs — modern post-money SAFEs (the YC 2018+ form, per the Y Combinator SAFE primer) fix dilution at the SAFE's valuation cap regardless of subsequent priced-round pricing, so the board should always reconcile the headline post-money against the fully-diluted cap table.", "fieldType": "currency", "unit": null, "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "preSeed", "seed", "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "Finance" ], "stageRelevance": { "preSeed": "recommended", "seed": "recommended", "seriesA": "recommended", "seriesB": "recommended", "seriesC": "recommended" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "NVCA Model Legal Documents (2024 revision)", "sourceUrl": "https://nvca.org/model-legal-documents/", "sectionRef": "Series A Charter — Post-Money Valuation convention", "publicationDate": "2024-01-01", "attributionNotice": null }, "formula": "post_money_valuation = pre_money_valuation + total_round_size. Per NVCA Model Documents. With outstanding post-money SAFEs, reconcile against the fully-diluted cap table — SAFE dilution is fixed at the cap regardless of priced-round price.", "whyItMatters": "The headline number the company carries forward — sets the goalposts for the next round (a down-round means raising at a lower post-money) and the strike-price floor for new option grants.", "interpretationGuidance": "Watch the post-money-to-ARR multiple (or post-money-to-net-burn if pre-revenue): public sources covering 2024–2025 (e.g. SaaS Capital \"Private SaaS Company Valuations\" report, valuation-multiples section; Sapphire / KBCM SaaS Survey, \"valuations\" chapter) show median ARR multiples have compressed materially from 2021 peaks. Pull the current edition for the live range — do not rely on a memorized number — and flag out-of-band multiples as next-round price risk. Where you only have rough heuristics, mark them as \"directional, not citation-grade\" rather than fabricating a precise band.", "relatedKpiIds": [ "fundraising.pre_money_valuation", "fundraising.total_round_size", "fundraising.founder_dilution", "sales.arr", "finance.net_burn_rate" ] }, { "rogueId": "fundraising.pre_money_valuation", "slug": "pre_money_valuation", "domain": "fundraising", "defaultLabel": "Pre-Money Valuation", "description": "Company valuation negotiated with investors immediately before the new round closes — the denominator for the new investors' ownership math. Per the NVCA Model Documents, pre-money = post-money − new money raised. Common pitfall: when convertible instruments (SAFEs, notes) are outstanding, the \"headline\" pre-money the CEO quotes and the effective pre-money after conversion can differ materially — the board should always ask for both. Equally important: option-pool top-ups taken pre-close come out of the pre-money share count, diluting founders not investors (the \"option pool shuffle\").", "fieldType": "currency", "unit": null, "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "preSeed", "seed", "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "Finance" ], "stageRelevance": { "preSeed": "core", "seed": "core", "seriesA": "core", "seriesB": "core", "seriesC": "core" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "NVCA Model Legal Documents (2024 revision)", "sourceUrl": "https://nvca.org/model-legal-documents/", "sectionRef": "Series A Charter — Original Issue Price", "publicationDate": "2024-01-01", "attributionNotice": null }, "formula": "pre_money_valuation = post_money_valuation − total_round_size. Per NVCA Model Documents convention. Effective pre-money after SAFE/note conversion can be lower than headline — surface both when convertibles are material.", "whyItMatters": "Sets the price for the round. Drives `founder_dilution`, the option-pool top-up math, and the precedent for the next round (down-rounds are punishing to recover from).", "interpretationGuidance": "Compare to stage-relative ranges from quarterly Carta / PitchBook reports (e.g. seed median has moved $12–18M post-money in 2024–2025). A pre-money below stage median typically signals either harsher terms or a strategic discount; above stage median demands real metric backing.", "relatedKpiIds": [ "fundraising.post_money_valuation", "fundraising.total_round_size", "fundraising.founder_dilution", "fundraising.convertible_outstanding" ] }, { "rogueId": "fundraising.total_round_size", "slug": "total_round_size", "domain": "fundraising", "defaultLabel": "Total Round Size", "description": "Total new capital being raised in the current round across all participants — the lead, follow-on investors, employee/strategic allocations, and any side-letter pieces. This is the figure that goes into the post-money math. Common pitfall: companies sometimes confuse `total_round_size` with `target_raise` — the round size is final and used in valuation math, while the target is what management is aiming for and can move during the raise. Boards should expect a specific breakdown by investor when this number is reported.", "fieldType": "currency", "unit": null, "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "preSeed", "seed", "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "Finance" ], "stageRelevance": { "preSeed": "core", "seed": "core", "seriesA": "core", "seriesB": "core", "seriesC": "core" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "NVCA Model Legal Documents (2024 revision)", "sourceUrl": "https://nvca.org/model-legal-documents/", "sectionRef": "Series A Stock Purchase Agreement — Aggregate Investment", "publicationDate": "2024-01-01", "attributionNotice": null }, "formula": "Sum of all new-money allocations in the round (lead + follow-on + strategic + employee + side letters). Distinct from `target_raise` (intent) and `committed_amount` (in-progress signal).", "whyItMatters": "Determines the round's post-money valuation and dilution math. Also signals investor concentration risk — a round with 80% from one investor differs structurally from a round with 5 equal participants.", "interpretationGuidance": "Round size noticeably below target typically signals investor demand weakness (consider repricing or scope cut). Round size meaningfully above target signals oversubscription — a healthy signal but raises governance questions on how allocations are decided.", "relatedKpiIds": [ "fundraising.target_raise", "fundraising.committed_amount", "fundraising.pre_money_valuation", "fundraising.post_money_valuation", "fundraising.founder_dilution" ] }, { "rogueId": "hr.arr_per_fte", "slug": "arr_per_fte", "domain": "hr", "defaultLabel": "ARR per FTE", "description": "Annual Recurring Revenue divided by total FTE-equivalent workforce — the canonical SaaS workforce-productivity ratio anchored to the SaaS Capital Annual Survey methodology (revenue per employee benchmarks). A high-signal denominator for \"are we over- or under-staffed for our revenue scale?\" Common pitfall: choosing different ARR conventions (ending vs average, GAAP-reconciled vs raw) without locking in a board-level standard. Best practice is to pair this with `sales.arr` so the numerator is unambiguous and to disclose whether contractors are included in the FTE denominator.", "fieldType": "currency", "unit": null, "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC", "public" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "HR", "Finance" ], "stageRelevance": { "seriesA": "core", "seriesB": "core", "seriesC": "core", "public": "core" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "SaaS Capital Annual Survey 2025 (14th Annual)", "sourceUrl": "https://www.saas-capital.com/blog-posts/revenue-per-employee-benchmarks-for-private-saas-companies/", "sectionRef": "Revenue per Employee", "publicationDate": "2025-06-01", "attributionNotice": null }, "benchmark": { "p25": 100000, "median": 130000, "p75": 175000, "unit": "$", "sourceName": "SaaS Capital Annual Survey 2025 (14th Annual)", "sourceYear": "2025", "higherIsBetter": true }, "formula": "ARR per FTE = `sales.arr` / `hr.total_headcount` (or FTE-equivalent including contractor adjustment from `hr.fte_metrics`). Document the denominator convention in board materials. Per SaaS Capital Annual Survey 2025 methodology (Revenue per Employee).", "whyItMatters": "Investors use this as a quick scalability and operating-leverage proxy — companies with higher ARR/FTE at a given scale typically command premium multiples. Internally, the metric anchors hiring-plan discipline: does each net new FTE earn its keep?", "interpretationGuidance": "SaaS Capital Annual Survey 2025 (§Revenue per Employee) reports private SaaS medians clustering in the $150K–$250K range, with top quartile $250K+ and bottom quartile under $150K (verify exact figures against the cited report — distributions vary by ARR band). Sub-$100K sustained at Series B+ is a board-level efficiency conversation. Reads should be paired with stage and growth rate — high-growth-stage companies tolerate lower ratios for a window in exchange for growth.", "relatedKpiIds": [ "sales.arr", "hr.total_headcount", "hr.fte_metrics", "hr.payroll_run_rate", "operations.rule_of_40" ] }, { "rogueId": "hr.avg_days_to_fill", "slug": "avg_days_to_fill", "domain": "hr", "defaultLabel": "Average Days to Fill", "description": "Mean elapsed days between requisition opening (approved and posted) and offer acceptance, averaged across requisitions filled in the period. The headline recruiting-velocity KPI commonly tracked in the SHRM Talent Acquisition Benchmarking Report. Common pitfall: choosing between time-to-fill (req-opened to offer-accepted) and time-to-hire (first-applicant to offer-accepted) without locking the convention — the two can differ by weeks. Best practice is to standardize on time-to-fill (the SHRM benchmark convention) and document any deviation.", "fieldType": "number", "unit": "days", "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC", "public" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "HR" ], "stageRelevance": { "seriesA": "recommended", "seriesB": "recommended", "seriesC": "recommended", "public": "recommended" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "SHRM Talent Acquisition Benchmarking Report", "sourceUrl": "https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/research/talent-acquisition-benchmarking-report", "sectionRef": "Time-to-Fill", "publicationDate": "2023-01-01", "attributionNotice": null }, "formula": "Average Days to Fill = Σ(offer-accepted-date − requisition-opened-date) / count of requisitions filled in the period. Convention: time-to-fill per SHRM Talent Acquisition Benchmarking Report — req-opened to offer-accepted, not first-applicant to offer-accepted.", "whyItMatters": "A stretching time-to-fill is one of the earliest leading indicators of either comp-band misfit, role-spec creep, or recruiter capacity exhaustion. Combined with `hr.open_positions`, it projects when promised capacity actually arrives.", "interpretationGuidance": "SHRM Talent Acquisition Benchmarking Report typically reports cross-industry medians around 40–45 days time-to-fill, with technical roles (engineering, data) often longer (60–90+ days). Verify against the most recent SHRM report for the exact figure. A sustained increase of >20% with no role-mix change typically signals a recruiting-pipeline issue (industry folk-wisdom, not citation-grade).", "relatedKpiIds": [ "hr.open_positions", "hr.hiring_plan", "hr.new_hires", "hr.key_openings", "hr.key_hires" ] }, { "rogueId": "hr.involuntary_turnover_rate", "slug": "involuntary_turnover_rate", "domain": "hr", "defaultLabel": "Involuntary Turnover Rate", "description": "Annualized rate of company-initiated separations as a percentage of average headcount. Complement to `hr.voluntary_turnover_rate`; together they form the total turnover picture per the Mercer US Turnover Survey methodology. Common pitfall: lumping one-time RIFs into the steady-state rate, which makes the trend unreadable. Best practice is to report steady-state involuntary turnover and call out any RIF events separately in `hr.board_actions` with the headcount delta.", "fieldType": "percentage", "unit": "%", "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC", "public" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "HR" ], "stageRelevance": { "seriesA": "recommended", "seriesB": "recommended", "seriesC": "recommended", "public": "recommended" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "Mercer US Turnover Survey 2025", "sourceUrl": "https://www.imercer.com/articleinsights/workforce-turnover-trends", "sectionRef": "Involuntary Turnover", "publicationDate": "2025-03-01", "attributionNotice": null }, "formula": "Involuntary Turnover Rate (annualized) = (Terminations in period / Average Headcount in period) × (12 / months in period) × 100. Convention: exclude announced RIF events from the steady-state series; report them separately with headcount delta. Per Mercer US Turnover Survey methodology.", "whyItMatters": "A read on performance-management cadence and any active restructuring. Sustained near-zero raises questions about management discipline; sustained-elevated raises questions about hiring quality or strategy thrash.", "interpretationGuidance": "US all-industry total turnover historically clusters in the 18–25% annualized range per Mercer US Turnover Survey 2025 (§Total Turnover); involuntary typically represents 4–8% of that total (verify exact splits against the cited report — distributions vary by industry). Companies with very low involuntary rates (<2% annualized) often have buried under-performers; companies above ~8% steady-state typically have a hiring or onboarding-quality issue (industry folk-wisdom on the upper bound, not citation-grade).", "relatedKpiIds": [ "hr.terminations", "hr.performance_watch_count", "hr.voluntary_turnover_rate", "hr.talent_challenges" ] }, { "rogueId": "hr.voluntary_turnover_rate", "slug": "voluntary_turnover_rate", "domain": "hr", "defaultLabel": "Voluntary Turnover Rate", "description": "Voluntary exits over a trailing period, expressed as an annualized percentage of average headcount — the headline attrition number on the HR scorecard. Anchored to the Mercer US Turnover Survey methodology (Mercer reports voluntary vs involuntary turnover annually). Common pitfall: comparing a single quarter's annualized rate against an annual benchmark — short-window annualization is noisy. Best practice is trailing-12-months for benchmark comparison and trailing-3 or trailing-6 for trend reads. Per #1426: stage-specific industry norms here are folk-wisdom unless tied to a specific Mercer or comparable published cut.", "fieldType": "percentage", "unit": "%", "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC", "public" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "HR" ], "stageRelevance": { "seriesA": "core", "seriesB": "core", "seriesC": "core", "public": "core" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "Mercer US Turnover Survey 2025", "sourceUrl": "https://www.imercer.com/articleinsights/workforce-turnover-trends", "sectionRef": "Voluntary Turnover", "publicationDate": "2025-03-01", "attributionNotice": null }, "benchmark": { "p25": 7, "median": 11, "p75": 17, "unit": "%", "sourceName": "Mercer US Turnover Survey 2025", "sourceYear": "2025", "higherIsBetter": false }, "formula": "Voluntary Turnover Rate (annualized) = (Voluntary Exits in period / Average Headcount in period) × (12 / months in period) × 100. Average headcount = (start headcount + end headcount) / 2 is the simplest acceptable convention; (Σ daily headcount / days in period) is more precise. Per Mercer US Turnover Survey methodology.", "whyItMatters": "The canonical retention KPI investors and boards benchmark against. Tracks the cost of churn — every voluntary exit triggers a replacement-cost cycle (recruiting + onboarding + ramp), commonly estimated at 0.5–2× the role's annual salary depending on level (industry folk-wisdom, not citation-grade).", "interpretationGuidance": "US all-industry voluntary turnover is typically 13–17% annualized per Mercer US Turnover Survey 2025 (§Voluntary Turnover). Tech sector typically runs higher than the all-industry average; engineering and sales roles run highest within tech. Sustained voluntary turnover above ~20% annualized at any stage is a board-action trigger; sustained sub-5% can indicate under-performance management (managers not exiting B-players). Compare trailing-12-month rates, not quarterly snapshots.", "relatedKpiIds": [ "hr.voluntary_exits", "hr.involuntary_turnover_rate", "hr.at_risk_count", "hr.retention_initiatives", "hr.talent_challenges" ] }, { "rogueId": "operations.rule_of_40", "slug": "rule_of_40", "domain": "operations", "defaultLabel": "Rule of 40", "description": "Composite SaaS health score that sums the company's revenue growth rate and a profitability proxy (commonly EBITDA margin or free-cash-flow margin) into a single percentage. Originally articulated by Brad Feld in 2015 and codified by the SaaS Metrics Standards Board, the rule frames the growth-vs-profitability tradeoff: a company growing at 60% with a −20% margin scores 40, equal to a company growing at 20% with a +20% margin. The board reads it to sanity-check whether growth is being bought at unhealthy burn or whether margin discipline is constraining growth too far. Common pitfall: which profitability proxy is used materially changes the score (FCF margin is the strictest, EBITDA more flattering, \"operating margin\" inconsistently defined), so pick one and disclose it next to the number.", "fieldType": "percentage", "unit": "%", "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC", "public" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "Finance" ], "stageRelevance": { "seriesA": "core", "seriesB": "core", "seriesC": "core", "public": "core" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "SaaS Metrics Standards Board", "sourceUrl": "https://www.saasmetricsboard.com/rule-of-40", "sectionRef": "Rule of 40", "publicationDate": "2023-01-01", "attributionNotice": "Metric definitions reference standards published by the SaaS Metrics Standards Board (saasmetricsboard.com). imboard is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or a member of SMSB." }, "benchmark": { "p25": -4, "median": 15, "p75": 31, "unit": "%", "sourceName": "KBCM/Sapphire SaaS Survey 2024 (15th Annual)", "sourceYear": "2024", "higherIsBetter": true }, "formula": "Rule of 40 = revenue_growth_rate (%) + profitability_margin (%). Per SMSB, `revenue_growth_rate` is typically YoY ARR or revenue growth; `profitability_margin` is typically EBITDA margin or FCF margin (disclose which). Both inputs are percentages — the output is also a percentage and can be negative when negative margin overwhelms growth.", "whyItMatters": "Single-number readout of the growth-vs-burn tradeoff. Lets the board compare a high-growth / high-burn company to a slow-growth / profitable one on one axis, and surfaces unhealthy growth (high growth paid for with margin much worse than negative growth-rate offset).", "interpretationGuidance": "Per the rule as originally framed by Brad Feld (2015) and the SaaS Metrics Standards Board, a score at or above 40% is the canonical \"healthy\" threshold for growth-stage SaaS; below 40% signals either growth or margin is under-delivering. Finer stratifications often cited (>50% strong, >60% best-in-class) are industry folk-wisdom, not citation-grade. Always disclose which profitability proxy is used — comparing an EBITDA-margin Rule of 40 to an FCF-margin Rule of 40 is apples-to-oranges and a frequent board-deck error.", "relatedKpiIds": [ "sales.growth_rate_yoy", "sales.gross_margin", "finance.net_burn_rate", "finance.runway_months" ] }, { "rogueId": "product.rd_monthly_spend", "slug": "rd_monthly_spend", "domain": "product", "defaultLabel": "R&D Monthly Spend", "description": "Total monthly cash outflow on research and development — fully-loaded engineering, product, and design payroll plus tooling, infrastructure dedicated to product development, contractors, and direct R&D vendor spend. The \"input\" side of R&D efficiency. Common pitfall: companies report base-payroll R&D and exclude the loaded cost (benefits, stock comp at cash-cost basis, allocated rent, dev tooling), under-reporting true R&D burn by 25–40%. Boards should always ask whether the number is base-payroll, fully-loaded, or GAAP R&D expense — they tell different stories. The KBCM/Sapphire SaaS Survey reports R&D as a percentage of revenue for its company panel — use that as the benchmarking lens.", "fieldType": "currency", "unit": "/month", "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC", "public" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "R&D", "Finance" ], "stageRelevance": { "seriesA": "core", "seriesB": "core", "seriesC": "core", "public": "core" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "KBCM/Sapphire SaaS Survey 2024 (15th Annual)", "sourceUrl": "https://www.cfodesk.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024_kbcm_sapphire_saas_survey.pdf", "sectionRef": "R&D as % of Revenue (capital-allocation section)", "publicationDate": "2024-09-01", "attributionNotice": null }, "formula": "Sum of fully-loaded R&D-team payroll + benefits + allocated stock-comp + R&D-dedicated infrastructure + R&D tooling + R&D vendor spend, expressed as a monthly figure. Different from GAAP R&D expense (which capitalizes some software development costs); footnote the convention.", "whyItMatters": "Largest single line of operating spend at most growth-stage SaaS companies — the input that `rd_efficiency` converts into revenue. The board reads this to gauge whether the company is over- or under-investing in product velocity relative to revenue ramp.", "interpretationGuidance": "Compare R&D spend to revenue (or ARR run-rate) to derive R&D-as-% of revenue. Per the KBCM/Sapphire SaaS Survey (latest annual edition — see capital-allocation section), median R&D-as-% of revenue runs ~25–35% at early-growth SaaS and compresses with scale. Out-of-band (e.g. 60%+ at a $20M ARR company) usually signals either heavy platform-investment cycles or under-monetization — flag for context. Always pull the current KBCM/Sapphire edition rather than relying on a memorized range.", "relatedKpiIds": [ "product.rd_efficiency", "product.total_engineers", "product.innovation_capacity_pct", "sales.arr", "finance.net_burn_rate" ] }, { "rogueId": "sales.arr", "slug": "arr", "domain": "sales", "defaultLabel": "ARR", "description": "Annual Recurring Revenue — the value of all recurring subscription revenue normalized to a one-year run-rate as of the period close. The headline operating metric for a subscription business; every growth and efficiency ratio (NRR, GRR, magic number, CAC payback, Rule of 40) is calibrated against it. Excludes one-time fees, professional services, and non-contractual usage. Common pitfall: confusing ARR (contracted recurring) with revenue (recognized) or with CARR (contracted incl. not-yet-live) — the SMSB standard draws sharp lines between them, and boards expect the same discipline. The KpiVarianceTable widget surfaces forecast / actual / variance / status / future-forecast columns against the same field.", "fieldType": "currency", "unit": null, "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "preSeed", "seed", "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC", "public" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "Finance", "Sales" ], "stageRelevance": { "preSeed": "core", "seed": "core", "seriesA": "core", "seriesB": "core", "seriesC": "core", "public": "core" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "SaaS Metrics Standards Board", "sourceUrl": "https://www.saasmetricsboard.com/annual-recurring-revenue", "sectionRef": "ARR", "publicationDate": "2023-01-01", "attributionNotice": "Metric definitions reference standards published by the SaaS Metrics Standards Board (saasmetricsboard.com). imboard is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or a member of SMSB." }, "formula": "ARR = Sum of annualized value of all active recurring subscription contracts at period close. Per SMSB: includes only the recurring portion of contracts that are live (delivered / in production). Excludes one-time fees, professional services, and usage that is not contractually committed. For multi-year contracts, ARR is the contract value divided by the term in years.", "whyItMatters": "Headline operating number that every other SaaS metric calibrates against — growth rate, efficiency ratios (CAC ratio, magic number, Rule of 40), retention math (NRR, GRR), and valuation multiples all read off ARR. Boards use the period-over-period ARR delta as the first-pass health check for the business.", "interpretationGuidance": "Per KBCM/Sapphire SaaS Survey 2024 §Growth Rate, public-SaaS-comparable private companies in the $5–25M ARR band typically grow ARR 40–60% YoY, falling toward 20–30% by $100M+ ARR; well-below-band growth at any ARR scale is the first thing a board interrogates. Always read ARR alongside Net New ARR (sales.new_business + sales.expansion − sales.churn_arr − sales.downgrades) — flat ARR can mask churn offset by upsell.", "relatedKpiIds": [ "sales.carr", "sales.new_business", "sales.expansion", "sales.churn_arr", "sales.downgrades", "sales.growth_rate_yoy", "sales.starting_arr", "customers.net_revenue_retention", "operations.rule_of_40" ] }, { "rogueId": "sales.avg_contract_value", "slug": "avg_contract_value", "domain": "sales", "defaultLabel": "Average Contract Value", "description": "Average annualized contract value across new-customer deals signed during the period (ACV). Defines where the company plays on the SaaS deal-size spectrum and dictates the operating model — high-ACV businesses tolerate longer sales cycles and direct sales motions; low-ACV businesses must run product-led or inside-sales motions to keep CAC payback short. Common pitfall: blending new and expansion ACV obscures the new-logo deal-size trend that boards actually want to see. Anchored to KBCM/Sapphire SaaS Survey 2024 §Average Contract Value for cross-company benchmarking.", "fieldType": "currency", "unit": null, "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC", "public" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "Sales" ], "stageRelevance": { "seriesA": "core", "seriesB": "core", "seriesC": "core", "public": "core" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "KBCM/Sapphire SaaS Survey 2024 (15th Annual)", "sourceUrl": "https://www.cfodesk.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024_kbcm_sapphire_saas_survey.pdf", "sectionRef": "Average Contract Value", "publicationDate": "2024-09-01", "attributionNotice": null }, "benchmark": { "p25": 25000, "median": 62000, "p75": 100000, "unit": "$", "sourceName": "KBCM/Sapphire SaaS Survey 2024 (15th Annual)", "sourceYear": "2024", "higherIsBetter": true }, "formula": "Average Contract Value = New Business ARR / New Customers Added (for the same period). For multi-year contracts, use the annualized ACV (TCV / contract term in years), not Total Contract Value (TCV). Restrict to new-logo deals to keep the trend interpretable; track Expansion ACV separately if material.", "whyItMatters": "Sets the cost ceiling for the sales motion — at $5k ACV the company cannot afford a field sales team; at $250k ACV inside sales alone usually leaves money on the table. The board uses ACV trend to validate up-market or down-market strategy bets.", "interpretationGuidance": "Per KBCM/Sapphire SaaS Survey 2024 §Average Contract Value, segmentation bands: SMB ≤ $5k, Mid-Market $5k–$50k, Enterprise > $50k (often $100k+ for true enterprise). ACV doubling over four quarters is a clear up-market motion — make sure CAC and sales-cycle changes are reflected in plan. Flat ACV with rising volume = scaling the existing motion; rising ACV with flat volume = a deliberate up-market bet that needs explicit board buy-in.", "relatedKpiIds": [ "sales.new_business", "sales.new_customers_added", "sales.median_deal_size", "sales.average_deal_size", "sales.avg_sales_cycle_days", "sales.cac" ] }, { "rogueId": "sales.blended_cac_ratio", "slug": "blended_cac_ratio", "domain": "sales", "defaultLabel": "Blended CAC Ratio", "description": "Total fully-loaded S&M spend in the period divided by the dollars of new CARR generated in the period (new-customer + expansion CARR combined). Per the SMSB standard, the headline efficiency ratio for the full sales-and-marketing motion — answers \"how many cents do we spend on S&M to add one dollar of contracted ARR.\" Common pitfall: blending without separately reporting New CAC Ratio and Expansion CAC Ratio hides which side of the motion is driving efficiency — for a healthy SaaS company expansion CAC is usually 3–5× cheaper per dollar than new-logo CAC.", "fieldType": "number", "unit": null, "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC", "public" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "Sales", "Finance" ], "stageRelevance": { "seriesA": "recommended", "seriesB": "recommended", "seriesC": "recommended", "public": "recommended" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "SaaS Metrics Standards Board", "sourceUrl": "https://www.saasmetricsboard.com/blended-cac-ratio", "sectionRef": "Blended CAC Ratio", "publicationDate": "2023-01-01", "attributionNotice": "Metric definitions reference standards published by the SaaS Metrics Standards Board (saasmetricsboard.com). imboard is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or a member of SMSB." }, "formula": "Blended CAC Ratio = Total S&M Spend (period) / (New CARR + Expansion CARR generated in period). Per SMSB §Blended CAC Ratio: spend uses the same fully-loaded definition as CAC; CARR-based denominator (not ARR) reflects committed contract value at the point of sign.", "whyItMatters": "The portfolio-level efficiency number — one ratio that summarizes the full S&M engine. Boards use it to track quarter-over-quarter efficiency improvement as the motion matures.", "interpretationGuidance": "Per SMSB convention, a Blended CAC Ratio < 1.0 means the company is acquiring more contracted ARR than it spends on S&M — capital-efficient growth. 1.0–1.5 is acceptable while the motion is scaling; > 2.0 sustained signals either a motion or pricing problem. Always pair with the New and Expansion CAC Ratio split to localize the issue.", "relatedKpiIds": [ "sales.new_cac_ratio", "sales.expansion_cac_ratio", "sales.cac", "sales.cac_payback_period", "sales.new_business", "sales.expansion", "sales.carr" ] }, { "rogueId": "sales.cac", "slug": "cac", "domain": "sales", "defaultLabel": "Customer Acquisition Cost", "description": "Fully-loaded sales-and-marketing (S&M) expense incurred to acquire one new customer during the period. Per the SMSB standard, the CAC numerator includes salaries + commissions + benefits + travel + marketing programs + tooling — i.e. all S&M costs, not just direct-attribution paid acquisition. The denominator is new logos, not deals. Common pitfall: omitting fully-loaded comp (especially BDR/SDR base salary and CS-team cost-of-sale where they participate in expansion) understates CAC and inflates every downstream efficiency metric. The board cares about CAC alongside CAC Payback and the CAC Ratio family — single-number CAC is a building block, not a verdict.", "fieldType": "currency", "unit": null, "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC", "public" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "Sales", "Finance" ], "stageRelevance": { "seriesA": "core", "seriesB": "core", "seriesC": "core", "public": "core" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "SaaS Metrics Standards Board", "sourceUrl": "https://www.saasmetricsboard.com/customer-acquisition-cost", "sectionRef": "CAC", "publicationDate": "2023-01-01", "attributionNotice": "Metric definitions reference standards published by the SaaS Metrics Standards Board (saasmetricsboard.com). imboard is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or a member of SMSB." }, "formula": "CAC = Total fully-loaded S&M expense for the period / New Customers Added in the period. Per SMSB §CAC: numerator includes all S&M spend (compensation, benefits, programs, tooling, allocated overhead); denominator counts net-new logos only (not expansion deals).", "whyItMatters": "The cost side of the customer-unit economics ledger — paired with ACV and gross margin, determines whether each customer is a profitable transaction over a reasonable horizon. Boards read CAC alongside payback period before debating S&M investment levels.", "interpretationGuidance": "Absolute CAC values vary by ACV band — what matters is the ratio CAC / first-year-ARR (= New CAC Ratio) and CAC Payback. Per public SaaS comps, healthy CAC payback is < 24 months gross-margin-adjusted; > 36 months usually means the acquisition motion is either too expensive or the contract terms too short.", "relatedKpiIds": [ "sales.cac_payback_period", "sales.new_cac_ratio", "sales.blended_cac_ratio", "sales.expansion_cac_ratio", "sales.new_business", "sales.new_customers_added" ] }, { "rogueId": "sales.cac_payback_period", "slug": "cac_payback_period", "domain": "sales", "defaultLabel": "CAC Payback Period", "description": "Number of months required for the gross profit generated from a new customer's ARR to recover the fully-loaded S&M spend used to acquire them. The single most decision-useful efficiency metric at the board level — it directly connects acquisition cost, ACV, and gross margin into one \"how long until we break even on this customer\" answer. Per the SMSB standard, the calculation must use gross-margin-adjusted ARR in the denominator (not raw ARR) to be cross-company comparable. Common pitfall: using raw ARR understates payback by ~25–30 percentage points and breaks comparability with peer benchmarks.", "fieldType": "number", "unit": "months", "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC", "public" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "Sales", "Finance" ], "stageRelevance": { "seriesA": "core", "seriesB": "core", "seriesC": "core", "public": "core" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "SaaS Metrics Standards Board", "sourceUrl": "https://www.saasmetricsboard.com/cac-payback-period", "sectionRef": "CAC Payback Period", "publicationDate": "2023-01-01", "attributionNotice": "Metric definitions reference standards published by the SaaS Metrics Standards Board (saasmetricsboard.com). imboard is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or a member of SMSB." }, "formula": "CAC Payback (months) = CAC / (Monthly New ARR × Gross Margin %). Per SMSB §CAC Payback Period: numerator is fully-loaded CAC (same definition as the CAC line), denominator uses gross-margin-adjusted monthly new ARR so the metric is comparable across companies with different cost structures.", "whyItMatters": "The decision-relevant single number for \"is the acquisition motion working\" — sub-24 months signals capital-efficient growth; > 36 months means each dollar of S&M is locking up cash for too long to justify scaling spend.", "interpretationGuidance": "Per the SaaS-investor convention reflected in KBCM/Sapphire SaaS Survey 2024 benchmarking: < 24 months gross-margin-adjusted payback is healthy; 24–36 months is acceptable for early-stage / up-market motions; > 36 months requires either an explicit path to compress (motion change) or a strategic rationale (e.g. multi-year deferred-revenue contracts with strong retention).", "relatedKpiIds": [ "sales.cac", "sales.new_cac_ratio", "sales.blended_cac_ratio", "sales.gross_margin", "sales.new_business", "sales.arr" ] }, { "rogueId": "sales.carr", "slug": "carr", "domain": "sales", "defaultLabel": "CARR", "description": "Contracted Annual Recurring Revenue — recognized MRR × 12 plus the annualized value of contracts that are signed but not yet live (i.e. implementation, ramp, deferred-start). Per the SMSB standard, CARR sits between ARR (live only) and pipeline (unsigned) on the revenue-certainty spectrum: contractually committed but not yet delivered. Boards reading CARR > ARR gap can quantify the in-flight implementation backlog and the leading indicator of next-period ARR. Common pitfall: counting verbal commitments or LOIs as CARR — only signed contracts qualify under the SMSB definition.", "fieldType": "currency", "unit": null, "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "preSeed", "seed", "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC", "public" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "Finance", "Sales" ], "stageRelevance": { "preSeed": "recommended", "seed": "core", "seriesA": "core", "seriesB": "core", "seriesC": "core", "public": "core" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "SaaS Metrics Standards Board", "sourceUrl": "https://www.saasmetricsboard.com/contracted-annual-recurring-revenue", "sectionRef": "CARR", "publicationDate": "2023-01-01", "attributionNotice": "Metric definitions reference standards published by the SaaS Metrics Standards Board (saasmetricsboard.com). imboard is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or a member of SMSB." }, "formula": "CARR = ARR (live, recognized contracts annualized) + Annualized value of signed contracts not yet in production. Per SMSB §CARR: requires a signed contract; excludes verbal commitments, letters of intent, and pipeline. The (CARR − ARR) gap = in-flight ARR awaiting go-live.", "whyItMatters": "A leading indicator that ARR alone misses — if CARR is growing faster than ARR, an implementation backlog is building and ARR will accelerate as those contracts go live. Boards use the CARR-to-ARR ratio to interrogate the implementation engine.", "interpretationGuidance": "A CARR / ARR ratio of 1.00 means everything signed is already live (no implementation backlog); 1.10–1.20 is typical for enterprise SaaS with multi-month implementation timelines; > 1.30 may signal either an implementation bottleneck (operational risk) or a deliberate backlog-build before a known activation event (intentional). Always cross-reference with the implementation team's capacity plan.", "relatedKpiIds": [ "sales.arr", "sales.new_business", "sales.blended_cac_ratio", "sales.new_cac_ratio", "sales.bookings_backlog_total" ] }, { "rogueId": "sales.expansion_cac_ratio", "slug": "expansion_cac_ratio", "domain": "sales", "defaultLabel": "Expansion CAC Ratio", "description": "Fully-loaded S&M plus Customer Success expense attributable to expansion divided by expansion CARR generated in the period. Per SMSB, the efficiency read on the upsell / cross-sell / land-and-expand motion. Distinct from the new-logo CAC ratio because the cost base often includes CSMs whose primary metric is retention but whose secondary metric is expansion — boards expect to see that allocation called out. Common pitfall: excluding CS comp entirely understates the true cost of expansion; including all of CS overstates it. The SMSB standard prescribes a documented allocation rule (typically tied to expansion-quota OTE share).", "fieldType": "number", "unit": null, "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC", "public" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "Sales", "Finance" ], "stageRelevance": { "seriesA": "recommended", "seriesB": "recommended", "seriesC": "recommended", "public": "recommended" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "SaaS Metrics Standards Board", "sourceUrl": "https://www.saasmetricsboard.com/expansion-cac-ratio", "sectionRef": "Expansion CAC Ratio", "publicationDate": "2023-01-01", "attributionNotice": "Metric definitions reference standards published by the SaaS Metrics Standards Board (saasmetricsboard.com). imboard is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or a member of SMSB." }, "formula": "Expansion CAC Ratio = (S&M + CS spend allocated to expansion in period) / (Expansion CARR generated in period). Per SMSB §Expansion CAC Ratio: allocation rule for cross-functional comp (typically split by quota share of OTE) must be documented and consistent.", "whyItMatters": "Validates the financial logic of \"expansion is cheaper than acquisition\" — when this is healthy, the company should bias growth investment toward post-sale; when it inverts (Expansion CAC ≥ New CAC), the expansion motion is broken and acquisition is the only available lever.", "interpretationGuidance": "Per SMSB convention, healthy Expansion CAC Ratio is typically 3–5× cheaper than New CAC Ratio — i.e. 0.2–0.5 when New CAC Ratio is ~1.5. Expansion CAC Ratio > 1.0 is a yellow flag (expansion costs as much as it earns); inversion vs New CAC Ratio is a red flag warranting a CS / sales-team org review.", "relatedKpiIds": [ "sales.blended_cac_ratio", "sales.new_cac_ratio", "sales.expansion", "customers.net_revenue_retention", "sales.carr" ] }, { "rogueId": "sales.gross_margin", "slug": "gross_margin", "domain": "sales", "defaultLabel": "Gross Margin", "description": "Recognized revenue minus cost of goods sold (COGS), divided by recognized revenue, expressed as a percentage. The single best read on whether the business model can ever generate operating leverage — a low gross margin caps every downstream efficiency metric (CAC payback, LTV/CAC, Rule of 40). For SaaS, COGS includes hosting, third-party software, customer support, and customer-success cost-of-service. Common pitfall: omitting customer success from COGS inflates the margin and breaks comparability with peer benchmarks. Anchored to KBCM/Sapphire SaaS Survey 2024 §Gross Margin.", "fieldType": "percentage", "unit": "%", "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC", "public" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "Finance" ], "stageRelevance": { "seriesA": "core", "seriesB": "core", "seriesC": "core", "public": "core" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "KBCM/Sapphire SaaS Survey 2024 (15th Annual)", "sourceUrl": "https://www.cfodesk.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024_kbcm_sapphire_saas_survey.pdf", "sectionRef": "Gross Margin", "publicationDate": "2024-09-01", "attributionNotice": null }, "benchmark": { "p25": 65, "median": 72, "p75": 81, "unit": "%", "sourceName": "KBCM/Sapphire SaaS Survey 2024 (15th Annual)", "sourceYear": "2024", "higherIsBetter": true }, "formula": "Gross Margin = ((Recognized Revenue − COGS) / Recognized Revenue) × 100. COGS for a SaaS business: cloud / hosting infrastructure, third-party data and APIs called for delivery, customer support, customer success cost-of-service, and any directly-attributable delivery personnel. Excludes R&D, S&M, and G&A.", "whyItMatters": "Caps every long-term efficiency metric — Rule of 40, LTV/CAC, CAC payback all run off contribution margin which derives from gross margin. Board uses it to verify the unit economics are real before debating S&M investment levels.", "interpretationGuidance": "Per KBCM/Sapphire SaaS Survey 2024 §Gross Margin, healthy SaaS gross margin is 70–80%; > 80% is best-in-class infrastructure leverage; < 65% usually signals heavy services revenue or inefficient COGS (often customer-success scaling linearly with customer count). Sub-70% companies must show a credible path to 70%+ by next funding milestone or face valuation pressure.", "relatedKpiIds": [ "sales.total_revenue", "sales.arr", "sales.cac_payback_period", "operations.rule_of_40", "sales.growth_rate_yoy" ] }, { "rogueId": "sales.growth_rate_yoy", "slug": "growth_rate_yoy", "domain": "sales", "defaultLabel": "Growth Rate (YoY)", "description": "Year-over-year percentage growth in ARR (or recognized revenue, if explicitly anchored) — comparing the current period to the equivalent period 12 months prior. The single most-watched investor metric and the largest single driver of SaaS valuation multiples. Common pitfall: comparing to the prior quarter (QoQ) and reporting it as \"growth rate\" — boards and investors mean YoY unless explicitly noted otherwise. Anchored to KBCM/Sapphire SaaS Survey 2024 §YoY ARR Growth for cross-company benchmarking.", "fieldType": "percentage", "unit": "%", "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC", "public" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "Finance", "Sales" ], "stageRelevance": { "seriesA": "core", "seriesB": "core", "seriesC": "core", "public": "core" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "KBCM/Sapphire SaaS Survey 2024 (15th Annual)", "sourceUrl": "https://www.cfodesk.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024_kbcm_sapphire_saas_survey.pdf", "sectionRef": "YoY ARR Growth", "publicationDate": "2024-09-01", "attributionNotice": null }, "benchmark": { "p25": 12, "median": 19, "p75": 27, "unit": "%", "sourceName": "KBCM/Sapphire SaaS Survey 2024 (15th Annual)", "sourceYear": "2024", "higherIsBetter": true }, "formula": "YoY Growth Rate = ((ARR at period close − ARR 12 months prior) / ARR 12 months prior) × 100. State the underlying metric explicitly (ARR vs Recognized Revenue) — they diverge meaningfully for sub-scale businesses. For quarters, use end-of-quarter ARR vs end-of-same-quarter-prior-year.", "whyItMatters": "Direct input to public-comparable valuation multiples (EV / NTM ARR multiples are sliced by growth band). Boards use it to triangulate stage-appropriate pace and to flag deceleration early.", "interpretationGuidance": "Per KBCM/Sapphire SaaS Survey 2024 §YoY ARR Growth, median private-SaaS growth bands by ARR scale: $5–10M ARR median ~55–70%, $10–25M ARR ~40–55%, $25–50M ARR ~35–45%, $50M+ ARR ~25–35%. Growth decelerating > 30 percentage points YoY at any ARR scale is the most actionable board warning signal — usually requires either pipeline-coverage diagnosis or product-investment reallocation.", "relatedKpiIds": [ "sales.arr", "sales.new_business", "sales.expansion", "sales.churn_arr", "operations.rule_of_40", "sales.gross_margin" ] }, { "rogueId": "sales.new_cac_ratio", "slug": "new_cac_ratio", "domain": "sales", "defaultLabel": "New CAC Ratio", "description": "S&M expense attributable to new-customer acquisition divided by the new-customer CARR generated in the period. Per SMSB, the cleanest read on the new-logo acquisition engine's efficiency — strips out the expansion motion which has materially different unit economics. Common pitfall: failing to split AE comp time correctly between new and expansion activities — when the same AE owns both motions, an allocation rule (often the % of OTE tied to new-vs-expansion quota) is required and must be applied consistently quarter-over-quarter.", "fieldType": "number", "unit": null, "maturity": "general", "suggestedForStages": [ "seriesA", "seriesB", "seriesC", "public" ], "defaultOwningFunctions": [ "Sales", "Finance" ], "stageRelevance": { "seriesA": "recommended", "seriesB": "recommended", "seriesC": "recommended", "public": "recommended" }, "definitionSource": { "tier": "published", "sourceName": "SaaS Metrics Standards Board", "sourceUrl": "https://www.saasmetricsboard.com/new-cac-ratio", "sectionRef": "New CAC Ratio", "publicationDate": "2023-01-01", "attributionNotice": "Metric definitions reference standards published by the SaaS Metrics Standards Board (saasmetricsboard.com). imboard is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or a member of SMSB." }, "formula": "New CAC Ratio = (S&M spend allocated to new-customer acquisition in period) / (New-customer CARR generated in period). Per SMSB §New CAC Ratio: spend allocation must follow a documented rule (e.g. fraction of S&M headcount tied to new-business quota) applied consistently.", "whyItMatters": "Isolates the new-logo engine — when blended CAC Ratio is moving, this is the first line of split-out diagnosis. Boards use it to evaluate whether to invest more in acquisition or shift weight toward expansion.", "interpretationGuidance": "Per SMSB convention, New CAC Ratio of 1.0–2.0 is the typical mid-stage SaaS band; > 2.5 sustained signals the new-logo motion is structurally expensive (often a fit problem with target segment). Should be ≥ Blended CAC Ratio (new-logo is always more expensive than expansion); if New CAC Ratio < Blended, the spend allocation between new and expansion is mis-tagged.", "relatedKpiIds": [ "sales.blended_cac_ratio", "sales.expansion_cac_ratio", "sales.cac", "sales.cac_payback_period", "sales.new_business", "sales.carr" ] } ]