Fundraising — Business Valuation
A valuation built for fundraising is not the same exercise as one built for a partner buyout or internal planning — the method, assumptions and level of scrutiny all differ by purpose. FMCA prepares independent valuations grounded in comparable transactions and financial modeling that holds up under real investor diligence, not a generic multiple applied to last year's revenue.
Reviewed by FMCA's Senior Fundraising Advisory Team — supporting SME and startup capital raises across the UAE and Saudi Arabia.
Four areas of work, from methodology selection through to a report built for the audience actually reviewing it.
DCF, comparable transactions or precedent transactions — selected against your stage and purpose, not applied as a default.
Projections built from your actual historicals, not a generic growth-rate template — the foundation the valuation itself depends on.
A report built to withstand real scrutiny — from an investor, a co-founder, or a bank — not a one-page number with no supporting rationale.
A fundraising valuation, a buyout valuation and an internal-planning valuation answer different questions — built for the one you actually need.
A weak valuation doesn't just fail to convince investors — it can actively work against the round.
A valuation set too high to close the current round can force a painful down round later — one of the most damaging outcomes for founder morale and future fundraising.
Investors discount projections they don't believe — unrealistic growth assumptions undermine the whole valuation, not just the number they support.
A DCF model applied to a pre-revenue startup, or a comparables approach with no real comparables, signals inexperience to sophisticated investors.
A credible valuation only holds up if the diligence behind it does too — see Investor Due Diligence for what happens next.
The two most common valuation methods work best in genuinely different situations, not interchangeably.
Our Approach
A valuation is only as credible as the model underneath it. FMCA's team builds the financial projections first, then applies the methodology that actually fits your stage and purpose — the same discipline behind every fundraising engagement we run, not a valuation produced in isolation from the numbers.
How We Work
Illustrative scenarios based on the kind of work we do — not descriptions of specific named clients.
A Series A valuation built on triangulated DCF and comparables held up through detailed investor questioning without a material renegotiation.
An independent valuation gave both sides a credible, defensible number, resolving a buyout negotiation that had stalled on conflicting internal estimates.
A comparable-transactions approach was used instead of a DCF model that would have relied on unsupportable early-stage growth assumptions.
Explore Further
Dedicated pages covering the full scope of related work — explore each in depth.
Related Insights
FAQ
It depends on the complexity of the business and the methodology required — a straightforward comparables-based valuation costs meaningfully less than a full DCF model with detailed projections. We scope this against your actual purpose before quoting.
Pre-revenue valuation typically relies more heavily on comparable transactions, team, market size and traction indicators than on a DCF model, which needs real cash flows to be credible.
Generally less than an independent valuation — sophisticated investors expect a defensible, third-party-reviewed number, particularly from Series A onward.
Yes — they answer different questions and can reasonably use different methodologies and assumptions, even for the identical business at the identical point in time.
Investors test the assumptions behind a valuation during diligence — a valuation that isn't supported by the underlying data room becomes a liability. See Investor Due Diligence for how the two connect.
Tell us where things stand and a senior consultant will get back to you directly — not a call centre.
