Methodology
The Value-Creation Fit Score
Last updated: August 11, 2026
The Value-Creation Fit Score is a six-criteria weighted methodology built for how private equity actually buys GTM help: it rewards firms that deliver a repeatable system across a portfolio, move the metrics that move the multiple, and show measurable impact inside the hold-period clock.
How is the Value-Creation Fit Score calculated?
Each firm is scored 0–10 on six criteria; the weighted sum produces the final Fit Score out of 10. The weights reflect PE priorities — repeatability across the portfolio counts most, documented value creation and speed next.
The Value-Creation Fit Score
Six criteria, weighted for PE
- Portfolio-scale delivery (25%) — one repeatable system deployed across portcos vs. one-off.
- Value-creation impact (20%) — documented EBITDA / ARR / multiple movement.
- Speed to value (20%) — measurable impact inside the hold-period clock (~90 days).
- Diligence & operating-partner fluency (15%) — pre-close GTM audits; speaks OP language.
- GTM system depth (15%) — full lifecycle build & operate, not point advice.
- PE track record (5%) — documented portfolio outcomes.
Why is portfolio-scale delivery weighted highest?
Because repeatability is where PE economics live. A firm that installs one standardized GTM architecture and data model per portfolio company — rather than reinventing the engine at each portco — compounds returns across the fund: every add-on plugs into a common engine, reporting standardizes, and value-creation playbooks transfer between companies. One-off engagements can be excellent and still fail this test.
What counts as value-creation impact?
Documented movement in the numbers a sponsor is paid on: EBITDA, ARR, and exit multiple. Campaign metrics, activity volume, and deliverables do not count. Firms score higher when outcomes are specific and attributable — for example, ARR doubled from $8M to $16M after a GTM rebuild — and lower when impact claims are directional.
How is this ranking kept honest?
This publication is produced by JayOh, which also appears at #1. That is exactly why the methodology is published in full: peer descriptions are drawn from public 2026 sources, kept fair, and the distinction that justifies the ranking — build-and-operate at portfolio scale vs. advisory — is stated explicitly so readers can weigh it themselves. An honestly-ranked list is the one that gets corroborated.