Consulting | Shop | Website | Newsletter | Speaking

Hey {{first_name}} 👋, I hope you’re having a great week! In the last issue, we discussed about The Rule of 40, and now we are moving with the next topic from Reporting content.

Let’s talk about ⬇️

Every pitch deck I've reviewed with a gross margin problem follows the same pattern.

The founder presents strong ARR growth, solid NRR, impressive logo counts — and then the gross margin line appears. Suddenly the energy in the room shifts. Questions multiply. The conversation stops being about vision and starts being about operational health.

Here's the story that captures it:

A B2B SaaS company around $14M ARR, heading into a Series B process. Their entire customer success function — four people, roughly $420K fully burdened — was sitting in operating expenses under "customer experience." The reasoning: CS was a retention function, not a delivery function.

When we audited the COGS structure, two of those four people were doing onboarding and implementation work explicitly scoped in customer contracts. Reclassifying just those two roles dropped gross margin from 74% to 69%.

The lead investor had independently arrived at 68%.

The founder walked into the first partner meeting with a five-point gap between their number and the investor's number — and spent the first thirty minutes of a ninety-minute meeting explaining the discrepancy instead of talking about growth.

Today I'm walking you through what investors actually expect at every ARR stage, where companies quietly leak margin, and the audit sequence that fixes it before diligence finds it.

Let's dig in:

1️⃣ What Gross Margin Actually Measures (And the Classification Test That Matters)

2️⃣ The Benchmarks by Stage — What Investors Actually Expect

3️⃣ Why This Drives Your Valuation Multiple Directly

4️⃣ The $800K Hiding in the Engineering Budget

5️⃣ How to Read Your Margin as an Operational Signal

6️⃣ The Six-Step Fix When You're Below Benchmark

The formula is simple:

The inputs are not. The critical distinction: COGS captures what it costs to keep delivering the product to paying customers. Not what it costs to acquire new ones.

What belongs in COGS:

What never belongs: sales commissions, marketing spend, R&D, G&A, executive salaries.

The nuanced one is customer success. CS work focused on adoption and retention is COGS. CS work focused on upsells and expansion is sales expense. The test isn't job title — it's whether the activity is required to deliver the contracted service. If your CS people are doing any scoped delivery work, they belong in COGS. Split salaries by time allocation, document the methodology, apply it consistently.

Both classification errors are expensive. Loading sales costs into COGS creates a valuation haircut you didn't earn. Leaving out delivery costs creates a due-diligence event you didn't plan for.

There's no single answer to "what's a good SaaS gross margin." There are stage-adjusted expectations:

Three things investors read between the lines:

At Seed, they're not expecting 80%. They're expecting a founder who can explain the COGS structure, identify the levers, and show margin improves with scale.

At $5M–$20M, the trend matters more than the level. A margin that was 68% at $3M ARR and is still 68% at $12M ARR signals something structurally wrong — the business isn't gaining the operating leverage that is the entire value proposition of SaaS.

At $20M+, the subscription/services split becomes mandatory. Investors want subscription gross margin reported separately from professional services margin, because blending obscures the economics of the core product.

And adjust for delivery model: pure-play PLG should hit 80–88% at growth stage. High-touch enterprise, 70–80% is structurally justified. Vertical SaaS with embedded services, 65–75% is acceptable when ACV and retention justify it. Usage-based/AI inference models often run 60–72% early in the scaling curve.

I'm Aleksandar, fractional CFO at Fiscallion, where we help founders like you achieve financial clarity, streamline reporting, and build investor-ready forecasts.

Ready to level up your finances?

Most founders understand conceptually that higher margin means higher valuation. Fewer understand the mechanism specifically enough to act on it.

Investors value SaaS on ARR multiples — and those multiples are calibrated to gross margin, because margin determines how much of each revenue dollar survives to fund growth.

A company with 85% gross margin and $10M ARR has $8.5M to deploy. At 60%, that same $10M ARR leaves $6M. At scale, that difference is the difference between funding growth from operations or perpetually needing external capital.

The data: SaaS startups with gross margins above 85% receive approximately 27% higher ARR multiples during fundraising and M&A. Those below 70% see material discounts — and more commonly, extended diligence processes that surface additional issues.

One more mechanism founders miss: gross margin gates your CAC payback. The standard formula divides CAC by monthly gross profit (MRR × gross margin). A business with 60% margin and a nominal 15-month payback actually has an 18.75-month payback on a gross profit basis. When your margin is below benchmark, every other unit economics metric looks worse than it actually is.

The second client story — because margin leaks aren't always about misclassification into the P&L. Sometimes the costs never make it to COGS at all.

At a company around $20M ARR, data pipeline, cloud infrastructure, and vendor API costs totaling over $800K annually were sitting in an engineering budget line — because the team managing them reported to the CTO.

Those costs were directly consumed in delivering the product. They scaled with usage, not headcount. Moving them to COGS dropped gross margin from 76% to 68%.

The founder had been benchmarking against SaaS peers at 75–80% and assumed they were healthy. They were below median and had no idea — because the cost was hidden in the wrong line item. The board conversation that followed wasn't about accounting. It was about unit economics — because the real margin profile implied the pricing model needed work before the next growth phase.

The other four leaks I see constantly:

Unoptimized cloud infrastructure. On-demand pricing as the path of least resistance, bills growing proportionally with ARR or faster. The fix is quarterly discipline: reserved instances, right-sizing, idle environment audits. Over 20% of engineering teams have little to no visibility into actual cloud spend.

CS costs in COGS without pricing recourse. If your ACV is $8K and CS spends 15 hours/year per customer at $85/hour fully burdened, that's $1,275 of COGS per customer — a 16% burden from CS alone. The answer isn't removing CS from COGS. It's pricing correctly and automating high-volume interactions.

Services revenue blended into subscription margin. PS margins run 20–35% vs. 70–85% for subscription. Blending compresses your subscription number and hides the signal. Investors will ask for the split anyway — getting ahead of it is what investor-ready looks like.

Allocation drift. A CS leader's team split between COGS and S&M, set once during a budget cycle, never revisited as responsibilities evolved. Same with DevOps engineers drifting between production support (COGS) and feature work (R&D). Without periodic reallocation reviews, the number quietly stops meaning anything.

Four patterns, four different diagnoses:

Declining over time → COGS growing faster than revenue. Usually infrastructure running ahead of optimization, CS scaling with complexity, or services mix shift. Each needs a different response.

Stable but below benchmark → structural issue. Either pricing isn't covering delivery cost, or the delivery model is inherently high-touch relative to price point. This is a pricing and product architecture problem — not an accounting problem.

Improving with scale → what investors want. Operating leverage in action: each new customer adds less incremental COGS than the last.

Suspiciously high (90%+) → occasionally a warning, not a celebration. Some low-touch products achieve it legitimately. But in my experience, a 90%+ margin often means CS and support costs are sitting in G&A or R&D where they don't belong. I'd rather find that before your investor does.

Most gross margin problems are fixable. They require discipline, not miracles. The sequence I run with clients:

Step 1: Audit COGS classification. Everything downstream is built on this foundation. Verify production infrastructure is included, CS is allocated properly, and nothing is sitting in COGS that belongs in OpEx.

Step 2: Separate subscription from services margin. You need to know which one is the problem before you can fix it.

Step 3: Build a COGS-per-customer model. Segment by tier, product, contract size. Almost every time, a subset of customers — usually the largest or most complex — is consuming disproportionate delivery cost at pricing that doesn't reflect it.

Step 4: Model the infrastructure optimization roadmap. The 3–5 changes with the highest margin impact, each with an implementation cost and payback period.

Step 5: Revisit your pricing floor. For any service-heavy component: 2.0x fully burdened delivery cost is the floor. Everything below that is margin-negative — and every margin-negative customer is subsidized by your margin-positive ones.

Step 6: Set a target and track it monthly. Named owner, documented baseline, monthly cadence. This is what separates companies that arrive at Series B with a clean narrative from those who spend the first two weeks explaining their numbers.

Gross margin touches everything: your valuation, your operational health, your ability to fund growth internally, your credibility in every investor conversation.

The benchmarks — 65–75% at early growth, 75–85% at scale, 85%+ best-in-class — are directional anchors, not absolutes. What matters is that you understand your number clearly, can explain the components behind it, and have a visible improvement trajectory.

The founder who says "subscription gross margin was 78.4% this quarter, up from 76.1%, driven by infrastructure optimization on our EU deployment — services margin was 31%, consistent with our implementation-heavy Q4 cohort" is in complete command of their business.

The founder who reports one blended number with no context leaves a vacuum. Investors fill vacuums with their own assumptions — and those assumptions are rarely charitable.

Get the inputs right, and the margin story follows.

Reply with "MARGIN" and I'll send you the COGS Audit Checklist I use with clients — it includes the full classification framework (what's in, what's out, the CS split methodology), the subscription-vs-services margin separator, the COGS-per-customer model template, and the monthly tracking cadence that keeps your number defensible through diligence.

Chat soon,

{{first_name}} You can get free stuff for referring friends & family to my newsletter 👇

50 referrals - Cash Flow Models Bundle 💰

10 referrals - SaaS Financial Model 📊

{{rp_personalized_text}}

Copy & Paste this link: {{rp_refer_url}}