In September 2025, Allermuir Capital used Hebrides AI to bracket Connectd's valuation ahead of its primary raise. The round closed at a $70m pre-money valuation and was oversubscribed, sitting just below the conservative end of the framework. The business has since grown more than 90% year-on-year, with roughly half of revenue now sourced from the United States, tracking the operating thesis the analysis tested.
About Connectd
Connectd is a B2B SaaS platform serving the fractional-executive market. It connects senior professionals to multiple client engagements through AI-driven matching, structured knowledge frameworks, and an integrated operating stack.
The mandate
Founders preparing for a priced round face a structural problem. Their own model reflects an inside view, while institutional investors apply an outside view shaped by public comparables, transaction multiples, and discount rates calibrated to early-stage risk. A credible valuation conversation has to reconcile both.
Connectd asked Allermuir for three things: a multi-method valuation built from the company's own forecast and cross-checked against an independent one; sensitivity analyses across revenue multiples, FCF multiples, and a DCF; and defensible floor and ceiling estimates that would hold up under institutional scrutiny.
The analysis
Hebrides ran two parallel tracks. The first applied market-standard methodologies to Connectd's own forecast. The second applied the same methodologies to an Allermuir-calibrated forecast, derived from the same operational data but adjusted for Hebrides' view of conversion, retention, and cost-to-serve.
| Methodology | On Connectd's forecast£14.56m 2026E rev / £8.87m 2027E FCF | On Hebrides' independent forecast£13.72m 2026E rev / £10.89m 2027E FCF |
|---|---|---|
| 5x–8x 2026E revenue | £72.8m – £116.5m | £68.6m – £109.7m |
| 10x–15x 2027E FCF | £88.7m – £133.1m | £108.9m – £163.3m |
| DCF (20% WACC, 15x terminal) | ~£65m | ~£58m |
The Hebrides case is more conservative on ramp speed, monetisation, and penetration. Hebrides inverted this on 2027E FCF: a forecast of £10.89m driven by tighter cost discipline and stronger operating leverage. Hebrides validated the 5–8× EV/Revenue range against comparables for a fractional-talent operating system: HR and contractor platforms like Deel and Rippling, work-OS peers like monday.com and Smartsheet (the latter taken private at 7.7× ARR), and talent marketplaces like Toptal and Upwork that anchor the conservative end. A 20–30% private-company discount was applied to set 5× as our floor and 8× as a sector-supported upper bound.
The outcome
The September 2025 close at $70m pre-money (~£52m) sat just below the Hebrides DCF and the conservative end of the revenue-multiple range. The round was oversubscribed.
That outcome is what a valuation framework is supposed to enable. The price at which a round actually clears is a function of supply, demand, investor mandates, and round dynamics, none of which a model predicts. What the framework does is give both sides of the table a numerical scaffold they can defend.
The Hebrides analysis gave us a defensible floor that institutional investors respected, and a ceiling that justified holding out for better terms.
— Roie Samuel, Founder, Connectd
Since the close
Connectd's operating performance has tracked, and in places exceeded, the assumptions embedded in Hebrides' independent forecast. Revenue growth has run above 90% year-on-year, consistent with the high-growth marketplace category Hebrides used to anchor the 5×–8× EV/Revenue range. Roughly half of revenue is now sourced from the United States, validating the geographic expansion case that Hebrides modelled into the forecast adjustments. The round being oversubscribed is itself evidence that the framework was credible to institutional capital rather than aspirational.
Where this applies
This engagement spans two adjacent use cases: defensible valuation work for companies raising capital, and independent scrutiny of forecasts for investors evaluating opportunities. The same multi-method framework, with the same comparable evidence behind it, runs on both sides of the table.