14 Comments
 

If you had to, you should use unlevered FCF. However, EV/EBITDA is preferred to EV/FCF because EBITDA is theoretically more difficult to manipulate and less volatile (disregards taxes and capex which vary from year to year). With that said, there's always debates on whether or not to include tax/capex in multiples calculations, especially if these are expected to be relatively constant on an annual basis.

 

When you're using multiples, you have to make sure the numerator and denominator match - the earnings/CF/etc in the denominator must be those attributable to the claimholders included in calculating the numerator. EV/EBITDA is logical because the numerator includes the value of both equity and debt claims while the denominator is earnings which are attributable to both equity and debt holders. Another example - if you're looking at a business with a minority owner, and EBITDA does not already subtract out earnings attributable to that owner, then in calculating EV for the EV/EBITDA multiple you must add the value of minority interest. If you always remember that the numerator/denominator must match in this way, then it becomes obvious which multiples make sense (EV/unlev FCF makes sense, EV/EFCF does not).

EV/FCF is an important metric in one sense because free cash flow generation is ultimately what you care about as the owner of a business. You can't spend EBITDA or EBIT, you can only extract from the business the FCF it generates. As the others have mentioned, however, FCF is often too lumpy to really compare businesses based on EV/FCF multiples. EV/EBITDA and other multiples are used because they are less lumpy / behave more nicely, but you have to keep in mind that such multiples are only useful if you are comparing two businesses which, in the long run at least, can translate EBITDA to FCF at the same rate - i.e., in the long run they will have similiar capex needs, working capital needs, and tax rates. That is true for very few pairs of companies, which is why EV/EBITDA is generally a terrible metric.

 
ExtelleronAs the others have mentioned, however, FCF is often too lumpy to really compare businesses based on EV/FCF multiples. EV/EBITDA and other multiples are used because they are less lumpy / behave more nicely, but you have to keep in mind that such multiples are only useful if you are comparing two businesses which, in the long run at least, can translate EBITDA to FCF at the same rate - i.e., in the long run they will have similiar capex needs, working capital needs, and tax rates. That is true for very few pairs of companies, which is why EV/EBITDA is generally a terrible metric.
If I had to pick one method for valuation (assuming positive EBITDA), I'd use EV/EBITDA and adjust it for risk factors and growth. As terrible as you claim it to be, it's still far more reliable than the alternatives.
 
Best Response

Accusamus est doloremque debitis. Et dicta nostrum accusamus voluptatibus. Ipsa qui dolor in perspiciatis quidem qui necessitatibus. Quis similique vel corrupti iure labore. Sit vero eum adipisci aspernatur earum rerum. Nihil ut aut voluptate dolorum. Eum labore sit odio qui.

Ab id dolorem ut minima. Quia ut qui necessitatibus quo ut. Harum architecto et sit quod. Sit placeat numquam aut vero reiciendis ullam. Quaerat reiciendis dolores consequuntur ipsa dolores. Est sed nam ratione omnis non blanditiis temporibus modi.

Career Advancement Opportunities

October 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.5%
  • Moelis & Company 01 99.0%
  • JPMorgan 01 98.4%
  • Guggenheim Partners 02 97.9%
  • Morgan Stanley 06 97.4%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

October 2026 Investment Banking

  • Moelis & Company No 99.5%
  • Morgan Stanley 02 99.0%
  • Evercore 01 98.4%
  • Banco Santander 02 97.9%
  • BMO Capital Markets 13 97.4%

Professional Growth Opportunities

October 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.5%
  • Moelis & Company 01 99.0%
  • Morgan Stanley 05 98.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 01 97.9%
  • JPMorgan No 97.4%

Total Avg Compensation

October 2026 Investment Banking

  • Vice President (16) $429
  • Associates (57) $264
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (8) $210
  • 2nd Year Analyst (28) $184
  • Intern/Summer Associate (16) $161
  • 1st Year Analyst (84) $151
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (76) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
kanon's picture
kanon
99.0
3
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
6
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
7
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
8
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
98.9
9
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
10
numi's picture
numi
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”