Consulting | Shop | Website | Newsletter | Speaking

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

Let’s talk about ⬇️

Most founders I work with have heard of the Rule of 40.

Fewer know how to calculate it correctly.

Even fewer know what to actually do with the number once they have it.

That gap matters. When an investor asks about your Rule of 40 score in a Series B call and you fumble the answer…or worse, cite a number built on the wrong inputs…you lose credibility fast. I've sat across from enough boards and growth investors to know this metric is one of the first filters applied to early and mid-stage SaaS companies. It's not the only filter, but it shapes the conversation before it even begins.

Today I'm walking you through the formula, the right profitability input, what a strong score looks like at each ARR stage in 2026, and the calculation mistakes that unravel under diligence.

Let's dig in:

1️⃣ The Formula (And the Input Everyone Gets Wrong)

2️⃣ Benchmarks by Stage…What "Good" Actually Looks Like

3️⃣ The $180K Add-Back That Unraveled a Fundraise

4️⃣ How to Improve the Score Without Manufacturing It

5️⃣ Is the Rule of 40 Still Relevant in 2026?

6️⃣ The 3-3-2-2-2 Rule…Related, Not a Replacement

7️⃣ The Palantir Outlier..What 127% Actually Tells You

The Rule of 40 is a single-number health check:

A company growing ARR at 35% YoY with a 10% EBITDA margin scores 45 — above the threshold. A company growing 15% with a -5% margin scores 10 — well below. Both inputs need to be for the same period, most commonly trailing twelve months.

The idea: a healthy SaaS business can trade growth against profitability — high growth compensates for thin margins, strong margins compensate for slower growth — as long as the combined score clears 40.

Here's where founders make their first error: "profit margin" is not a fixed definition. Different investors use different metrics — EBITDA margin, free cash flow margin, operating income, net income.

Why? EBITDA can be gamed — aggressive capitalization of dev costs, favorable stock-comp treatment, creative "adjusted EBITDA" add-backs. FCF is harder to obscure. It's the cash that hit or left your bank account.

Sophisticated investors will ask for both. If your FCF-based score is meaningfully different from your EBITDA-based score, that divergence is itself a signal worth explaining before they find it.

A Rule of 40 score of 25 at $2M ARR is a completely different animal from 25 at $20M ARR. Here's how I frame it with clients:

Early stage ($1M–$5M ARR): Least reliable as a standalone metric. I've seen seed-stage companies post 80+ simply because they went from $400K to $1.2M ARR (200% growth) while losing money modestly. That score means almost nothing in isolation. What matters more here: churn, NRR, CAC payback. And per BCG's benchmark of 100+ private SaaS companies, only 9% of companies under $30M revenue beat the Rule of 40 — falling short at this stage is the norm, not the exception.

Mid stage ($5M–$20M ARR): This is where it starts carrying real weight in Series A/B diligence. A score of 40+ puts you in the top tier. 25–39 is competitive but needs explanation. Below 25 with no clear improvement path is a conversation-stopper with growth equity.

Scale stage ($20M–$100M ARR): Near-universal filter. Growth naturally compresses as the denominator grows, so the profitability component becomes increasingly important. BCG found 26% of companies above $80M revenue beat the Rule of 40, vs. 22% in the $30–80M range.

Bootstrapped vs. equity-backed: One underappreciated pattern from SaaS Capital's research — bootstrapped companies consistently outperform equity-backed peers on this metric, primarily due to forced cost discipline. If you're bootstrapped, your score is likely more meaningful than the same score at a VC-backed peer, because it reflects genuine operating leverage rather than capital subsidy.

Important 2026 context: scores have compressed industry-wide, driven primarily by slowing growth rates, not margin deterioration. A score that looked middling in 2021 may now be closer to median. Cohort comparison matters more than ever.

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?

The most frequent errors I see in Rule of 40 calculations:

Using MoM or QoQ growth annualized instead of true YoY. Annualizing a hot quarter inflates the number. Always use trailing twelve-month ARR growth.

Mixing ARR growth with GAAP revenue growth. If you have material deferred revenue or services revenue, these diverge. Use ARR growth — it reflects the true recurring engine.

Using adjusted EBITDA without disclosure. This is the one that kills deals. Here's a real example:

A founder at ~$11M ARR presented a Rule of 40 score of 27, built on adjusted EBITDA that added back roughly $180K in recruiting fees — search firm costs for two senior hires. The argument: non-recurring.

The investor's position: senior hiring is a recurring cost of operating and growing a software business. If you're at $11M ARR and planning to grow, you will hire senior people again. The search fee is the cost of doing that. It's not add-back eligible.

When the investor removed it, adjusted EBITDA moved from -8% to -12%, and the score dropped from 27 to 23 on the same growth rate. The founder had built the entire fundraise narrative around 27. The recalibration mid-process forced a repositioning of the whole pitch.

Ignoring the trend. A score improving from 22 → 31 → 38 over six quarters is often more compelling than a flat 42. A score that deteriorated from 55 to 38 is a warning even though it still clears the threshold.

Treating all revenue as equal. High services mix compresses your profitability component artificially. The Rule of 40 works cleanly on pure-play subscription. Hybrid models need context.

Two levers: grow faster or improve margins. The skill is knowing which one you can actually pull at your stage without destroying the other.

On the growth side (the larger driver for most early/mid-stage companies):

On the profitability side (the more nuanced lever):

What does not work: slashing R&D or S&M to hit a number in a single quarter. It produces a momentarily improved score while damaging the assets that generate future growth. BCG's data confirms it: companies that ramped sales and marketing spend without an efficient GTM operation in place were the only cohort in the entire study with a negative aggregate Rule of 40 score.

Short answer: yes, with qualifications.

Every sophisticated SaaS investor I know still references it. But four things have changed:

The profitability side got heavier. Post-2022, the growth-only narrative stopped working. Companies previously valued on growth multiples alone had to demonstrate a credible path to operating leverage.

The Rule of X is gaining traction. Some investors — including Bessemer, who've publicly argued the Rule of 40 is outdated — now apply a 2× weight to growth, since growth compounds while margin is a one-period benefit. Under Rule of X, a company with 25% growth and -10% EBITDA scores 40 (25×2 − 10) vs. a Rule of 40 score of 15. Know both calculations before investor conversations.

Scores have compressed industry-wide. Driven by slowing growth, not margin deterioration.

FCF weight has increased. Investors increasingly use FCF-based scores because free cash flow is harder to manipulate and more directly tied to capital efficiency.

The Rule of 40 isn't dead. But it's not sufficient alone. Pair it with NRR, CAC payback by channel, gross margin by revenue line, and burn multiple. Presenting it in isolation is, frankly, insufficient for any board deck at Series A and above.

Quick clarification, because these get confused: the 3-3-2-2-2 rule is a growth velocity benchmark, not a profitability metric. It describes a target trajectory for venture-backed SaaS from ~$1M ARR:

It evolved from T2D3, recalibrated for today's capital-efficiency era.

How they connect: if you're in Year 2 tripling from $3M to $9M, your growth rate is 200% — your Rule of 40 score is almost certainly above 40 even with a deeply negative margin. But by Year 4–5, when growth drops to 100% off a bigger base, the profitability component starts to matter for staying above the threshold.

And no..it's not for everyone. It's a venture-scale benchmark. If you're bootstrapped or building a niche vertical product, this cadence isn't your relevant yardstick. That doesn't make your business less valuable. It means you're building for a different outcome.

Palantir reported a Rule of 40 score of 127% in Q4 2025 — 70% YoY revenue growth plus a 57% adjusted operating margin. US commercial revenue grew 137% YoY, driven by enterprise adoption of AIP.

That's roughly three times the healthy threshold. And their trajectory..from 57% in Q1 2024 to 127% in Q4 2025, a 70-point improvement in eight quarters…reflects genuine operating flywheel mechanics, not accounting adjustments.

Why include this? Because investors will sometimes reference it in conversations about AI-native software economics — and you should understand what's driving it and how different it is from the structural dynamics of most B2B SaaS.

The useful comparison at $5M–$30M ARR isn't Palantir. It's the median private company data: most equity-backed SaaS in that range scores 20–45, with bootstrapped peers a few points higher. That's the peer group that actually calibrates investor expectations for your round.

A below-40 score is a diagnostic, not a verdict.

If you're under 40 today, ask: is the growth component slowing and why? Is there gross margin you haven't captured? Are the cost items inside the profitability component going to improve naturally with scale…or are they structural?

If you're above 40, don't stop there. The threshold is an investor filter, not a ceiling. Companies operating consistently at 50+ or 60+..through genuine operating leverage, not accounting adjustments…build a structurally different relationship with their investors and their capital options.

The goal is not to optimize for the metric. The goal is to build a business where the metric is a natural output of the underlying health.

Reply with "RULE40" and I'll send you the Rule of 40 Component Tracker I build with clients — it includes the quarterly trend decomposition (growth vs. profitability contribution), the FCF-vs-EBITDA dual calculation, the Rule of X companion score, and the peer cohort benchmarking table that keeps your board conversations grounded in the right comparison set.

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}}