ICONIQ Analytics - IPO Preparedness and Performance 2021

1
ICONIQ ANALYTICS & INSIGHTS
IPO Preparedness, Structure, and Performance
February 2021
Confidential and Proprietary – Do Not Distribute

2 Confidential and Proprietary – Do Not Distribute
THIS PRESENTATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE INVESTMENT ADVICE OR AN OFFER TO SELL OR A SOLICITATION OF AN OFFER TO BUY ANY SECURITIES,WHICH WILL ONLY BE MADE PURSUANT TO DEFINITIVE SUBSCRIPTION AND
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS. THIS PRESENTATION HAS BEEN PREPARED ON A CONFIDENTIAL BASIS. ANY REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION OF THIS PRESENTATION IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OR THE DISCLOSURE OF ANY
OF ITS CONTENTS, WITHOUT THE PRIOR CONSENT OF ICONIQ CAPITAL, LLC (“ICONIQ” OR THE “FIRM”), IS PROHIBITED.
THIS PRESENTATION MAY CONTAIN FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS BASED ON CURRENT PLANS, ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS. THE RECIPIENT OF THIS PRESENTATION (“YOU”) ARE CAUTIONED THAT A NUMBER OF
IMPORTANT FACTORS COULD CAUSE ACTUAL RESULTS OR OUTCOMES TO DIFFER MATERIALLY FROM THOSE EXPRESSED IN, OR IMPLIED BY, THE FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS. NO INFORMATION IS CONTAINED HEREIN WITH
RESPECT TO CONFLICTSOF INTEREST WHICH MAY BE SIGNIFICANT. YOU SHOULD CONDUCT YOUR OWN ANALYSIS THEREOF. AS SOME OR ALL PRIVATE INVESTMENT FUNDS MAY NOT BE SUITABLE FOR CERTAIN INVESTORS, ANY
PERSONS SUBSCRIBING FOR OR MAINTAINING AN INVESTMENT MUST BE ABLE TO BEAR THE RISKS INVOLVEDAND MUST MEET THE SUITABILITY REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO SUCH INVESTMENT.
ICONIQ IS A DIVERSIFIED FINANCIAL SERVICES FIRM AND HAS DIRECT CLIENT RELATIONSHIPS WITH PERSONS THAT MAY BECOME LIMITED PARTNERS OF ICONIQ STRATEGIC PARTNERS, L.P. (THE “FUND”). NOTWITHSTANDING
THAT A PERSON MAY BE REFERRED TO HEREIN AS A “CLIENT” OF THE FIRM, NOLIMITED PARTNER OF THE FUND WILL, IN ITS CAPACITY AS SUCH, BE A CLIENT OF ICONIQ. FOR PURPOSES OF THE U.S. INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT
OF 1940 AND CORRESPONDING LAWS OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS, ONLY THE FUND WILL BE A CLIENT OF ICONIQ. PARTNERS OF THE FUND GENERALLY WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO OPT IN OR OUT OF PARTICULAR INVESTMENTS
MADE BY THE FUND, AND ICONIQ WILL NOT PROVIDE INVESTMENT ADVICE DIRECTLY TO THE PARTNERS IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS SUCH.
THERE CAN BE NO ASSURANCE THAT THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE FUND WILL BE PROFITABLE OR WILL EQUAL THE PERFORMANCE OF PRIOR INVESTMENTS MADE BY PERSONS DESCRIBED IN THIS PRESENTATION. AMONG
THE RISK FACTORS THAT EACH PROSPECTIVE INVESTOR SHOULD CONSIDER ARE THE RISK FACTORS SET FORTH IN THIS PARAGRAPH.THE FUND DOES NOT HAVE A TRACK RECORD, WHICH MEANS THAT PROSPECTIVE
INVESTORS HAVE A LIMITED BASIS ON WHICH TO JUDGE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INVESTMENT TEAM OF THE GENERAL PARTNER OF THE FUND.AN INVESTOR IN THE FUND COULD LOSE ALL OR A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF
ITS INVESTMENT.THE FUND’S PERFORMANCE MAY BE VOLATILE.THE FUND WILL PARTICIPATE IN A LIMITED NUMBER OFINVESTMENTS AND WILL SEEK TO MAKE INVESTMENTS PRIMARILY IN THE TECHNOLOGY AND RELATED
SECTORS (INCLUDING SOFTWARE, DIGITAL MEDIA, E-COMMERCEAND CONSUMER PRODUCTS).AS A RESULT, THE FUND’S INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO COULD BECOME HIGHLY CONCENTRATED, AND THE NEGATIVE PERFORMANCEOF
A FEW HOLDINGS OR THIS INDUSTRY MAY SUBSTANTIALLY AND ADVERSELY AFFECT ITS AGGREGATE RETURN.THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFERRING INTERESTS IN THE FUND, AND AN INVESTMENT IN THE FUND WILL BE
HIGHLY ILLIQUID.THERE IS NO SECONDARY MARKET FOR INVESTORS’ INTERESTS IN THE FUND AND NONE IS EXPECTED TO DEVELOP.AN INVESTMENT IN THE FUND INVOLVES COMPLEX TAX CONSIDERATIONS AND THERE MAY BE
DELAYS IN DISTRIBUTING TAX INFORMATION TO INVESTORS.THE FUND’S FEES AND EXPENSES MAY BE SUBSTANTIAL, AND MAY OFFSET THE FUND’S INVESTMENT PROFITS.
THIS PRESENTATION AND THE VIEWS EXPRESSED HEREIN ARE ONLY INTENDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.
THIS PRESENTATION CONTAINS ANALYSES, OPINIONS AND ESTIMATES OF ICONIQ CAPITAL, LLC ("ICONIQ") AND ITS PERSONNEL THAT CONSTITUTE OUR JUDGMENT AS OF THE DATE OF THIS PRESENTATION AND ARE SUBJECT TO
CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE. THIS PRESENTATION CONTAINS OUR ANALYSES WITH RESPECT TO IPO PREPAREDNESS, STRUCTURE AND PERFORMANCE. THE OPINIONS CONTAINED IN THIS PRESENTATION DO NOT TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, OBJECTIVES, OR NEEDS AND ARE NOT INTENDED AS RECOMMENDATIONS OF PARTICULAR IPO STRUCTURES, IPO PLANNING STRATEGIES, SECURITIES, FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS, OR
INVESTMENT STRATEGIES IN ANY INDIVIDUAL INSTANCE. THE RECIPIENT OF THIS PRESENTATION MUST MAKE ITS OWN INDEPENDENT DECISIONS REGARDING ANY IPO STRUCTURES, IPO STRATEGIES, SECURITIES OR FINANCIAL
INSTRUMENTS MENTIONED HEREIN.
THIS PRESENTATION IS NOT INTENDED AS AN OFFER OR SOLICITATION FOR THE PURCHASE OR SALE OF ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR ANY INVESTMENT DECISION, NOR SHOULD IT
BE RELIED UPON FOR LEGAL, ACCOUNTING OR TAX ADVICE OR INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE, IN ANY INDIVIDUAL INSTANCE. INFORMATION HAS BEEN OBTAINED FROM SOURCES BELIEVED TO
BE RELIABLE BUT ICONIQ DOES NOT WARRANT ITS COMPLETENESS OR ACCURACY EXCEPT WITH RESPECT TO ANY DISCLOSURES RELATIVE TO ITSELF. ICONIQ IS AN INVESTMENT ADVISER REGISTERED WITH THE U.S.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION. REGISTRATION AS AN INVESTMENT ADVISER DOES NOT IMPLY ANY LEVEL OF SKILL OR TRAINING. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.
ICONIQ WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OR HAVE ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURIES OR DAMAGES, INCLUDING INJURIES OR DAMAGES THAT MAY RESULT FROM (I) THE RELIANCE OF ANY PERSON UPON ANY INFORMATION OR
OPINION PROVIDED OR (II) ANY ERRORS, INACCURACIES, OMISSIONS IN, OR ANY OTHER FAILURE OF, THE DATA HEREIN, FROM WHATEVER CAUSE. ICONIQ SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT OR INCIDENTAL SPECIAL OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN AND/OR FROM DECISIONS TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF SUCH INFORMATION, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER DAMAGES WERE FORESEEABLE OR
UNFORESEEABLE.
Copyright © 2021 ICONIQ Capital, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
ICONIQ Capital, LLC
Disclosure

3
The following report aims to answer key questions across several major
topics related to successfully planning for and executing an IPO
AN ANALYSIS OF RECENT SOFTWARE IPOS
AN IN-DEPTH LOOK AT PREPAREDNESS, PROCESS AND PERFORMANCE
Driving Ongoing
Performance
• What do scale, growth, efficiency and profitability typically look like leading up to IPO?
• How do these metrics evolve in post-IPO years?
• How do top performers effectively manage the street through forecasting post IPO?
1
Valuation &
Trading Multiples
• How have these public software companies historically been valued - both at IPO and since?
• How do these compare to overall market valuation?
2
IPO Structure &
Banker Selection
• What have the most common economic structures been over the past few years?
• How do these vary based on which banks are involved?
3
Disclosure &
Filing
• What metrics are typically disclosed – both at time of IPO (S-1s and 424B4s) and on an on-going
quarterly and annual basis?
• For those that are disclosing net retention, how are they typically defining it?
4

Enterprise SaaS IPO Report: Approach
Methodology & Data Sources
Enterprise SaaS IPOs Included1
Major Software IPOs ~2H2013 – 2020
Make-Up of Enterprise SaaS Companies Included in Analysis
Across Various Dimensions
IPO Year
Product Profile
IPO Size ($M)2
Scale Range at IPO
(LTM Revenue)
Growth Range at IPO
(LTM YoY Revenue Growth)
ICONIQ investment
10 9
12
7
13
10
<$100M $100-$150M $150-$200M $200-$250M $250-$500 $500M +
3
5
7
4
8
12 12 11
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
23
16
7 6
10
1
11
21
12
17
55
7
Horizontal Vertical
* All IPOs that have since been acquired are excluded from this report, but the
data is available in our accompanying Tableau dashboard
Notes: (1) Includes all software IPOs across all ICONIQ Growth portfolio including co-investments as of the time period indicated above (2) IPO Size reflective of 42B4 filing and does
not include greenshoe. Trademarks are the property of their respective owners. None of the companies illustrated have endorsed or recommend the services of ICONIQ.
Source: Public Filings for Software IPO June 2013 to December 2020

Driving
On-Going
Performance
• Recent SaaS IPOs indicate a continued emphasis on growth over profitability, with IPO multiples once again
correlating most highly with factors related to Rule of 40 (driven by growth), revenue growth and net retention –
highlighting the importance of sustainable and predictable growth
• While FCF margin is less critical leading up to IPO, strong companies demonstrate a clear path to profitability, with
50% of top performers breaking-even in 2 years post IPO
• Although SaaS IPOs stalled in the first half of 2020, momentum picked up with a rise in vertical SaaS IPOs across
more resilient companies like nCino as well as strong horizontal companies like Snowflake
• A company’s ability to “beat and raise” revenue estimates each quarter is strongly correlated to public market
performance, with top performers having an average beat of 9.6% each quarter against consensus and a 6.7%
beat against management guidance
IPO Structure
& Banker
Selection
• Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs continue to lead the vast majority of enterprise SaaS IPOs with an average
allocation of ~35-40%
• The most common deal structures have historically had either 3 or 4 co-managers, with anywhere from 3 to 7% being
allocated to each
• Two common practices we see in the IPO process are using parallel non-deal roadshows run by multiple banks to
evaluate partnership prior to selection and sometimes a pre-IPO financing round to elevate company story to investors
Valuation &
Trading Multiples
• IPO multiples have been steadily rising over the past ~3 years, with average forward multiples across 2020
software IPOs exceeding all historical software companies analyzed since 2013
• While average market multiples (S&P) have also seen some measured increases overtime, they are overshadowed by
multiples of enterprise SaaS companies. Average multiples by year of all software IPOs that occurred prior to 2020
have all seen an increase of over 100% since IPO
Disclosures
• Customer metrics remain important for disclosures. Based on benchmarking of 76 software companies, 95% of
companies have disclosed number of customers and 83% a dollar-based net retention figure at the time of IPO; the
majority continue ongoing disclosure of these metrics in 10-Ks and 10-Qs
• In S-1s, most software companies disclose key metrics on customer performance beyond retention / expansion rates, in
particular number of customers and performances of cohorts
Executive Summary
1
3
2
4
Pages 9 - 35
Pages 36 - 38
Pages 39 - 44
Pages 45 - 52
Note: Information provided is accurate as of 12/31/20
Source: Factset, Public Filings for Software IPO June 2013 to December 2020

Key Trends from 2020
2020 was a significant year for software IPOs in many ways, including additional filing requirements from the SEC to address
COVID-19 impact as well as strong momentum for software companies in the public markets
Disclosures & Filing • 90% of 2020 Enterprise SaaS IPOs in this dataset disclosed net dollar retention at time of IPO with a median
figure of 115%, compared to 83% of companies from 2013-2019
Driving Ongoing
Performance
• 2020 saw a rise in vertical SaaS IPOs, with 4 companies (nCino, Bentley Systems, Duck Creek Technologies,
Vertex) going public this year compared to 3 companies in total from 2013 - 2019
• Growth continues to be valued more than profitability, with 50% of 2020 IPOs profitable at time of IPO; average LTM
Revenue YoY Growth was 57% for the 2020 cohort, however the predictability of this growth, with a clear path to
profitability remains important
• It is worth noting that, among many other factors, we’ve also seen this year’s increased multiples driven by lower cost
of capital leading to lower discount rates and higher enterprise valuations for 2020 IPOs
IPO Structure & Banker
Selection
• Many private companies that were planning on going public in the latter half of 2020 delayed their IPOs (e.g., Affirm)
or reconsidered their process (e.g., Roblox) given recent public market volatility
• The significant increase in retail interest and companies choosing to go with safer IPO prices may have contributed
to the significant 1st day “pops” seen across 2020 IPOs, with the average 1st day pop for 2020 IPOs at 78%
• In recent years, strategic investors and partnerships have become more common - validating the value of disruptive
companies, which in turn has de-risked IPOs during times of volatility (e.g., Snowflake, Bentley Systems)
Valuation & Trading
Multiples
• Despite a slow start to the year, the 16 SaaS IPOs that traded in 2020 raised a cumulative $11B+ in the public
markets (~1/4 of which was attributed to Snowflake), compared to $5B spread across 12 companies a year prior
• 2020 forward multiples at IPO dwarfed previous years, with an average of 14.8x compared to an average of 6.3x
from 2013-2019

COVID-19 Impact to IPO Filings
The SEC introduced new filing requirements for IPOs in 2020 to address COVID-19 impact; common risk factors cited by 2020
IPOs include delays in new projects and renewals, in addition to customer requests for payment extensions
Common COVID-19 risk factors stated across SEC
filings for 2020 software IPOs include:
• Slowed growth or decline in new customer demand
• Delays in new projects
• Delays in renewal subscriptions for existing customers
• Requests by customers for extension of payment
obligations
• Reduced effectiveness of sales and marketing efforts
• Reduced contract value with prospective or existing
customers
• Reductions in upselling and cross-selling to existing
customers
COVID-19 – Impact to IPO Processes
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its effect on
companies’ risks and effects, the SEC introduced
several changes to filing IPOs.
COVID-19 Order:
The below disclosures to address impact from the
2020 pandemic are required for existing public
companies through the Form 8-K (or Form 6-K) and
S-1 / 424B4 prospectus for new IPOs:
1. Acknowledgement of reliance on COVID-19 Order
2. Estimated filing date
3. Reasons for delayed filing
4. COVID-19 risk factors
Note: The above is a high-level overview presented for illustrative purposes only is not meant to be a comprehensive overview of SEC IPO filings, nor is it meant to be legal advice.
For proper legal advice, please contact your own attorney.
Source: SEC Website, Public Filings for Software IPO June 2013 to December 2020

Paths to the Public Market: IPOs, Direct Listings, or SPACs?
Direct listings and SPACs have become a viable route to the public markets for software companies in recent years; however,
the number of enterprise software companies choosing these options remains limited
2020 Trends: Alternative Avenues to the Public
Market
• In addition to a rise in SPACs (special purpose
acquisition companies), 2020 also saw an increase in
the number of direct listings, with Slack, Asana, and
Palantir choosing to pursue direct listings
• In 2020, 16 enterprise SaaS companies raised a
cumulative $11B+ via traditional IPOs while 2
enterprise SaaS companies went public via SPACs
• Although the number of completed enterprise SaaS
SPACs remains low, we are starting to see early signs of
a new cohort of enterprise SPACs supported by
sponsors with tactical expertise (e.g., Thoma Bravo)
and will continue to keep a close eye on these going
forward to the extent they produce relevant insights
% of Software Milestones
Enterprise SaaS Only
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
IPO
Direct
Listing
SPAC
Methodology Note:
Because only a handful of recent SPACs were true enterprise software
companies and for the most part, included companies with weaker growth and
efficiency profiles, we have excluded them from the subsequent detailed analysis

Table of Contents
Driving Ongoing Performance
Valuation & Trading Multiples
IPO Structure & Banker Selection
Disclosure & Filing

Top Quartile by Metric
IPO Performance Framework: Valuation Performance vs. Market Over Time
Success of an IPO is, by nature, a subjective measure and the decision to go public is motivated by a wide range of objectives -
however, one holistic and objective way to identify top performing companies is to compare multiples as well as value creation
Assessing IPO Success: Forward Revenue Multiples at IPO vs. Today and Indexed Change in Stock Price
Performance
Notes: (1) “Current” represents data as of 12/31/2020; (2) Forward multiples based on NTM Revenue from Wall Street Research and Investment Banking materials from Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs (3)
IPO multiples reflects basic shares outstanding for market cap as received from Investment Banking pricing materials; (4) Although Asana multiple is included for comparison purposes, Asana was a direct listing
Indication of Success of IPO:
Forward2 Multiple at IPO
Correlated with stage and health of
business leading up to IPO: scale,
growth, profitability, efficiency
(More details on slide 10)
Indication of Success Post-IPO:
Current1 Forward2 Revenue Multiple
Most correlated with business
performance since IPO and
whether company has been able to
maintain, or increase value of their
company
Indication of Value Creation:
Ratio of Change in Stock Price Since
Day 1 Close vs. Market (S&P)
Includes various factors beyond
pure business operations, e.g.,
initial pricing, ability to forecast and
manage the street, market
demand, etc.
1
2
3
Top quartile across 2+ dimensions (“Top performer” – detail on next slide)
All other companies
70x
46x
40x39x38x37x36x35x33x31x28x27x26x26x25x24x24x24x23x22x22x21x20x19x18x18x17x17x17x17x17x16x15x14x14x13x13x13x12x12x12x11x10x10x 8x 8x 8x 8x 7x 6x 5x 5x 5x 5x 4x 4x 4x 4x 3x 2x
Snowflake
Bill.com
Cloudflare
Crowdstrike
ZScaler
Coupa
Datadog
Shopify
Appian
Okta
Atlassian
Zoom
Jfrog
nCino
Fastly
Paycom
BigCommerce
RingCentral
Veeva
DocuSign
Twilio
Avalara
Duck
Creek…
Elastic
Anaplan
Blackline
Appfolio
Asana
Smartsheet
Ceridian
Hubspot
Paylocity
Cardlytics
Alteryx
Zoominfo
Sprout
Social
Bentley
Systems
Zendesk
Vertex
PagerDuty
Sailpoint
SumoLogic
Jamf
Rapid7
Bandwidth
Domo
Ping
Identity
Health
Catalyst
Mimecast
Pluralsight
FireEye
New
Relic
Zuora
Yext
Cloudera
Dropbox
Talend
Box
Pure
Storage
Casa
Systems
25.0
14.5
9.4
7.4 7.2 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.6 5.9 5.3 5.0 4.9 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.0 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3
Shopify
Paycom
RingCentral
Cardlytics
Appfolio
Appian
Okta
Hubspot
Twilio
Coupa
Zendesk
Bandwidth
Alteryx
Atlassian
ZScaler
Paylocity
Zoom
DocuSign
Cloudflare
Veeva
Bill.com
Blackline
Mimecast
Sailpoint
Crowdstrike
Fastly
Avalara
Smartsheet
Ceridian
Sprout
Social
Anaplan
Datadog
Rapid7
Domo
Elastic
Vertex
Zoominfo
Ping
Identity
Bentley
Systems
New
Relic
Snowflake
Duck
Creek…
SumoLogic
Asana
Health
Catalyst
Jfrog
Talend
PagerDuty
BigCommerce
Pluralsight
Pure
Storage
Yext
nCino
Jamf
Dropbox
Zuora
Cloudera
Box
Casa
Systems
FireEye
37x
21x
19x17x
15x15x
12x12x12x11x11x11x10x10x10x10x10x 9x 9x 9x 8x 8x 7x 7x 7x 7x 6x 6x 6x 6x 6x 6x 6x 6x 6x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 5x 4x 4x 4x 4x 4x 4x 4x 3x 3x 3x 3x 2x 1x
Snowflake
Jfrog
Asana
Datadog
Zoominfo
Zoom
Duck
Creek…
Crowdstrike
Cloudflare
nCino
FireEye
Veeva
SumoLogic
Jamf
BigCommerce
Bentley
Systems
Elastic
Bill.com
Atlassian
PagerDuty
New
Relic
Anaplan
Vertex
ZScaler
Smartsheet
Pluralsight
DocuSign
Shopify
Sprout
Social
Box
Paylocity
Fastly
Dropbox
Okta
Hubspot
Pure
Storage
Zuora
Coupa
Blackline
Sailpoint
Cloudera
Ping
Identity
Health
Catalyst
Ceridian
Avalara
Rapid7
Yext
RingCentral
Paycom
Alteryx
Twilio
Zendesk
Appian
Talend
Casa
Systems
Mimecast
Appfolio
Domo
Bandwidth
Cardlytics

Veeva
BigCommerce
DocuSign
Twilio
Avalara
Paycom
Elastic
Ping Identity
Duck Creek Technologies
Alteryx
Anaplan
Appfolio
Bandwidth
Blackline
Box
Cardlytics
Casa Systems
Ceridian
Cloudera
Domo
Dropbox
FireEye
Hubspot
Mimecast
New Relic
PagerDuty
Paylocity
Pluralsight
Pure Storage
Rapid7
RingCentral
Sailpoint
Smartsheet
Talend
Yext Zuora
Zendesk
Jamf
Vertex
Bentley Systems
Sprout Social
Health Catalyst
Zoominfo
SumoLogic
Asana
Fastly
Atlassian
Datadog
Zoom
Crowdstrike
nCino
Cloudflare
Jfrog
Coupa
Okta
Bill.com
Appian
ZScaler
Shopify
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
- 5 10 15 20
Across these three dimensions, a group of 14 ‘top performers’ emerges that – while not a perfect representation of IPO
‘success’ - allows us to better distill findings and trends across a narrower set of strong companies
Indication of Success of IPO
Indication of Increase in Value Creation
Indication
of
Success
Post-IPO
Snowflake
“Top Performers”
This Group of 14 companies have top
quartile results across at least 2 of
these 3 key dimensions:
1. Forward Multiple at IPO1
2. Forward Multiple Today2
3. Value Creation for Shareholders
Performance
(off axis)
Top
quartile
Top
quartile
2
1
3
Assessing IPO Success: Forward Revenue Multiples at IPO vs. Today and Indexed Change in Stock Price
1
2
3

Veeva
BigCommerce
DocuSign
Twilio
Avalara
Paycom
Elastic
Ping Identity
Duck Creek Technologies
Alteryx
Anaplan
Appfolio
Bandwidth
Blackline
Box
Cardlytics
Casa Systems
Ceridian
Cloudera
Domo
Dropbox
FireEye
Hubspot
Mimecast
New Relic
PagerDuty
Paylocity
Pluralsight
Pure Storage
Rapid7
RingCentral
Sailpoint
Smartsheet
Talend
Yext Zuora
Zendesk
Jamf
Vertex
Bentley Systems
Sprout Social
Health Catalyst
Zoominfo
SumoLogic
Asana
Fastly
Atlassian
Datadog
Zoom
Crowdstrike
nCino
Cloudflare
Jfrog
Coupa
Okta
Bill.com
Appian
ZScaler
Shopify
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
- 5 10 15 20
Within the broad buckets of strong operational profiles and the ability to effectively manage expectations, below are a few
explicit examples of how these elements have contributed to performance over various time horizons (detailed case studies on
subsequent slides)
Performance
Drivers of Ongoing
Performance
Top performers post IPO are able to
demonstrate many of the below
strengths:
• Strong top-line growth by
successfully capturing new
customers or retaining and growing
the existing customer base
• Product driven innovation that
enables the company to provide
differentiated solutions to meet
customer needs
• Ability to consistently beat
quarterly estimates and raise
expectations for future growth
Ongoing growth of customer
base and strong product-led
innovation (page 55)
Ongoing growth and increased strength
in competitive positioning supported
expansion into new markets (page 58)
Indication of Success of IPO
Indication
of
Success
Post-IPO
Snowflake
Superior YoY growth and
profitable business model
(page 54)
Early in public journey, but
strong revenue growth and
net retention (page 56)
Continued growth and efficiency, adding new
customers of increasing size over time, strong
upsell via product expansion (page 57)
Select Drivers of Ongoing Performance
(5) Trademarks are the property of their respective owners. None of the companies illustrated have endorsed or recommend the services of ICONIQ
Additional detail on top 3 horizontal
and top 2 vertical SaaS IPO multiples
provided as case studies in the
Appendix

Beat and Raise: Key Considerations
One way for companies to perform well in the public market and raise multiples is by managing their “beat and raise” each
quarter
Since IPO, Elastic NV has consistently had beat and raise
quarters with average quarter actuals beating management
guidance by 7.2%. This has contributed to significant price
gains and a 185% increase in its multiple since IPO.
Since IPO, Dropbox has not been able to consistently beat
plan and further raise expectations, with average quarter
actuals only barely beating management guidance by
1.2%. This is in part reflected in its stagnant price growth and
3% decrease in its multiple since IPO.
• Analysts' consensus forecasts and a company's own guidance
estimates are used to establish a benchmark with which to
evaluate actual earnings results
• A “beat” refers to quarterly actuals exceeding original estimates
while a “raise” refers to an increase in management’s guidance for
future quarters
What is “beat
and raise”?
• A company’s ability to meet and beat quarterly guidance estimates
signals visibility into future performance, strong growth
prospects as well as an internal financial and operational rigor to
accurately forecast and meet market demand
• Thus, a company’s ability to “beat and raise” is strongly correlated to
public market performance
Why is it
important?
Key
Considerations
• Private companies nearing IPO should be able to exceed short
term targets (monthly or quarterly top-line plans) while also
increasing mid-term targets (annual top-line plan)
• While beating expectations is important, excessive sandbagging can
also be detrimental to performance
• We usually recommend companies start thinking about this ~2 years
before IPO and build in the forecasting rigor and appropriate
financial models to start thinking like a public company
CASE STUDIES
Performance
Notes: (1) Information provided is accurate as of 12/31/20 (2) Trademarks are the property of their respective owners. None of the companies illustrated have endorsed or recommend the services of ICONIQ

Beat and Raise: Performance by Quarter
Software companies consistently beat consensus estimates and management guidance each quarter after IPO; over time, the
beat against consensus and guidance start to plateau and converge as forecasting improves
% Beat Each Quarter After IPO
% increase above revenue guidance, Factset
N-size 52 46 45 44 42 38 34 34 31 27 22 22 21 21 18 17
Top
Performers
Median:
9.6%
All
Companies
Median:
5.4%
Software companies consistently beat consensus estimates
each quarter after IPO by a median of 5.4% and management
guidance by a median of 4.1%.
Over time, and as forecasting abilities are further honed, beat
against consensus and guidance start to converge to around
3-5% for average companies and 5-8% for top performers.
Performance
Significant beats against consensus in initial
quarters driven primarily by Zoom earnings
Top
Performers
Median:
6.7%
All
Companies
Median:
4.1%
Beat against
Consensus
Beat against
Guidance
Source: Factset, Guidance and Consensus History

Beat and Raise: Correlation to Price Changes
The first quarter of earnings is an important time to manage the street and build trust with shareholders; for top performers,
there is a meaningful correlation between % beat (of revenue plan) and subsequent stock price changes
All Companies
Top Performer
Median
Consensus
Beat %
Guidance
Beat %
1 Month
Price %
All Companies 9.1% 5.4% 0.2%
Top Performers 16.2% 9.7% 9.1%
Overall 11.9% 6.3% 1.4%
R2 = 23%
Performance
% Beat vs 1-Month Price Change (1st Quarter post IPO)
% increase above revenue guidance vs 1-month price change, Factset
Beat against Guidance Beat against Consensus
R2 = 39%
Source: Factset, Guidance and Consensus History

49%
43%
32%
32%
Rule of 40
Revenue Growth
Gross Margin
Net Retention
From a multiple standpoint, public markets continue to
value growth over profitability
LTM FCF Margin
has become less
significant
in correlation with
IPO multiple
strength since
2018
LTM Revenue
Growth
has become
increasingly
correlated with
IPO multiples
over the past 6
years
Business Performance vs. IPO Multiples
Across all companies, initial IPO performance (forward multiple at time of IPO) is correlated with factors spanning scale, growth,
efficiency, and profitability, but most closely linked to Rule of 40 and Growth
Last Q, YoY: 43%
LTM, YoY: 41%
FY+1, YoY: 40%
FY-1: 49%
LTM: 39%
FY+1: 37%
Performance
Rule of 40: Growth vs. Profitability and directional change in relevance over time
Correlation by each variable by year of IPO
Factors Most Positively Correlated with Forward Multiple at time of IPO
Correlation Coefficient (R) with Company IPO Multiple
Across all IPOs: 41%
Across all IPOs: 1%
FY-2: 32%
LTM: 26%
FY-0: 24%
LTM, where disclosed: 32%
40%
88%
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
-78% -35%
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Business Performance vs. 30 Day Performance
While a variety of factors dictate IPO performance, the market has historically rewarded companies with strong, predictable
growth and healthy margins
Performance
IPO Year
Market Cap at IPO
($Ms)
LTM Revenue YoY
Growth (%)
LTM
Rule of 40 (%)
LTM Net Retention
(%)
LTM Gross
Margin (%)
Forward Multiple at
IPO
30 Day Price Change
from Offering (%)
2020 $3,528 42% 36% 115% 71% 11.1x 66%
2019 $2,205 40% 25% 125% 74% 8.5x 46%
2018 $1,954 47% 38% 115% 71% 6.0x 51%
2017 $1,001 47% 40% 120% 68% 4.4x 36%
2016 $873 71% 46% 119% 68% 4.6x 59%
2015 $1,285 81% 65% 108% 70% 5.4x 29%
Pre-2015 $821 67% 53% 96% 66% 5.6x 47%
Median $1,595 49% 40% 116% 70% 5.7x 48%
Business Performance vs. IPO and 30-Day Price Performance
Median by IPO Year
While a variety of factors, including industry sentiment and overall equity market performance dictate IPO performance, the market has historically rewarded companies
with strong growth and health margins.
Across all SaaS IPOs in this database, top quartile Rule of 40 companies have a median offer to 30-day price increase of 82%, compared to 49% for all companies.
Additional detail on business performance metrics by company can be found in the Appendix.

Performance across Four Key Metrics
We can examine business performance leading up to IPO across four key metrics: scale, growth, FCF margin, and Rule of 40–
some of which have tighter ranges as it relates to successful IPOs than others
Scale Growth Efficiency Rule of 40
Revenue
($M, LTM)
Revenue Growth
(% YoY, LTM)
FCF Margin
(% Revenue, LTM)
Rule of 40
(LTM Revenue YoY Growth +
LTM FCF Margin, %)
Median Range Median Range Median Range Median Range
Top Performers ~$157
$109 - $403
~71%
9% - 138%
~(12%)
(33%) – 14%
~63%
7% – 125%
Horizontal
SaaS
~$160
$76 - $1,107
~49%
7% - 239%
~(12%)
(133%) – 28%
~41%
(88%) – 184%
Vertical SaaS ~$168
$54 - $768
~50%
11% - 98%
9%
(35%) – 27%
~37%
30% - 119%
Performance
Recent Software IPOs: Company Performance Across Four Key Metrics

Scale and Growth: LTM Revenue & YoY Growth
Historically, vertical SaaS companies have IPO-ed at a smaller scale threshold than horizontal SaaS companies, however, scale
as a stand-alone metric has proven to be less indicative of overall IPO performance
LTM YoY Revenue Growth (%)
Median Range
Horizontal SaaS $160 $76 - $1107
Vertical SaaS $168 $54 - $768
Top Performers $157 $109 - $403
Overall $161 $54 - $1107
31% 11% 7% 45% 36% 12% 138% 54% 18% 104% 25% 8% 118% 0% 239% 82% 57% 40% 35% 29% 10% 23% 76% 84% 83% 79% 42% 71% 30% 98% 49% 87% 39% 9% 54% 50% 49% 9% 24% 30% 112% 16% 49% 106% 63% 48% 64% 45% 121% 66% 71% 40% 37% 46% 49% 59% 93% 33% 84% 21% 81%
Performance
Scale and Growth: Revenue and YoY Growth at time of IPO
LTM Revenue ($M) and YoY Growth (%), Enterprise SaaS IPOs Filed in Last 7 Years

$33
$48
$78
$116
$156
$51
$84
$132
$165
Scale and Growth: Surrounding IPO
While top performing companies are not always larger than their peers at time of IPO, they typically have stronger growth in the
years leading up to IPO and are able to maintain healthy growth trajectories post IPO as well
<$50M
n=3
FY-2
$50-$100M
n=9
$100-$150M
n=14
$150-$200M
n=7
200M+
n=29
FY-1
FY-0
FY+1
FY+2
LTM Revenue at
Time of IPO
All Companies
Top Performers
$0
$27
$48
$75
$106
80%
55%
42%
YoY
Growth
35%
56%
49%
33%
70%
71%
56%
39%
YoY
Growth
$48
$79
$120
$170
$217
$56
$77
$119
$165
$208
$299
$306
$402
$511
$636
$87
$146
$291
$498
$758
Performance
Scale and Growth: Average LTM Revenue and YoY Growth by Scale at IPO
Revenue ($M) and YoY Growth (%) By Scale and Time
$81
$109
$169
$252
$336
$63
$107
$184
$287
$398
2%
31%
22%
25%
67%
100%
71%
52%
YoY
Growth
63%
53%
41%
28%
37%
55%
38%
26%
YoY
Growth
49%
61%
49%
34%
YoY
Growth
65%
57%
25%

Rule of 40: At Time of IPO
While a variety of factors dictate IPO performance, the market has historically rewarded companies with strong growth and
healthy margins with an average offer to 30 performance of >80% for top quartile Rule of 40 companies
Only ~52% of
Enterprise SaaS
companies analyzed
met or exceeded Rule
of 40 at time of IPO
Median Range
Horizontal SaaS 41% (88%) - 184%
Vertical SaaS 37% 30% - 119%
Top Performers 63% 7% - 125%
Overall 40% (88%) - 184%
Offer + 30 Day Performance (% Change in Price)
Performance
Rule of 40: LTM YoY Revenue Growth + FCF Margin
%, Enterprise SaaS IPOs Filed Last ~7 Years
4% 150% 82% 109% 93% 115%102%112%172% 86% 29% 42% 17% 23% 79% 38% 80% 48% 47% 14% 20% 10% -5% 40% 173% 50% 60% 72% 37% 116% 25% -1% 66% 54% 48% 46% 36% 44% 49% 43% 8% 7% 47% 82% 58% 89% 8% 35% 24% 89% 6% 49% 0% 61% 10% 53% 346% -21%

Rule of 40: Growth vs. Profitability
While the majority of these top performers experienced growth greater than 70% YoY in the year leading up to IPO, only 4 of
them were profitable at time of IPO
LTM Revenue ($M)
The majority of top performers meet or exceed the Rule of 40 – the
majority which are driven by growth (vs. FCF margin)
Even amongst top performers, however, there is a range in both LTM
growth and FCF margin metrics, however median revenue growth
hovers around ~70% for this subset in the year leading up to IPO.
Horizontal SaaS
Vertical SaaS
Top Performers
Met or exceeded Rule
of 40 at time of IPO
Performance
Rule of 40: LTM YoY Revenue Growth + FCF Margin
%, Enterprise SaaS IPOs Filed Last 7 Years
Bentley
Systems

-$4
-$9
-$11
$7
-$7
-$8
-$13
-$23
-$21
-$14
-$26
-$25
$15
Profitability: Surrounding IPO
The majority of top performing public software companies are not profitable leading up to IPO
FY-2
FY-1
FY-0
FY+1
FY+2
LTM Revenue at
Time of IPO
<$50M
n=3
$50-$100M
n=9
$100-$150M
n=14
$150-$200M
n=7
200M+
n=29
All Companies
Top Performers
-15%
-18%
-14%
7%
Margin
-$4
-$25
-$25
-$23
-$12
-$7
-$6
-$6
-$4
-$7
$6
$6
$28
$37
$53
-$2
-$38
-$41
$9
$31
Performance
Profitability: Average FCF by Scale at IPO
FCF ($M) and Margin (%) By Year and Revenue Range
-$29
-$23
-$40
-$28
-$30
-$32
-$22
-$46
-$39
-$28
-32%
-21%
-14%
-5%
-8%
-5%
-2%
-3%
Margin
-9%
-12%
-16%
-17%
-19%
-13%
Margin
-21%
-28%
-31%
-19%
9%
-21%
-24%
-11%
-9%
-21%
-25%
-14%
-7%
Margin
-37%
-50%
2%
7%
7%
8%
-26%
-14%
2%
4%
Margin
2%
-3%

Gross Margin
Gross Margin at time of IPO ranges widely, with a median of ~70%
Median Range
Horizontal SaaS 72% 36% - 86%
Overall 70% 36% - 86%
Performance
Profitability: Gross Margin
Blended, at Time of IPO (%)

Profitability: LTM FCF at Time of IPO
At time of IPO, the majority of software companies are free-cash-flow negative, with only ~37% profitable
LTM Rule of 40
FCF Margin + YoY Revenue Growth (%)
Median Range
Horizontal SaaS (9%) (133%) – 28%
Vertical SaaS 9% (35%) – 27%
Top Performers (9%) (33%) – 19%
Overall (8%) (133%) - 28%
59% 37% 119% 74% 32% 33% 121% 38% 116% 122% 33% 17% 41% 43% 125% 46% 17% 52% 11% 36% 72% 78% 43% 78% 57% -1% 40% 17% 40% 18% 47% 70% 41% 7% 64% 21% 65% 31% 11% 28% 98% 43% 46% 21% 13% 56% 106% 7% 8% -4% 30% 53% 24% 10% 184% 15% -88%
Performance
Profitability: Free Cash Flow Margin
LTM, % Revenue

26%
30%
36%
44%
21%
21%
43%
50%
FY-1
FY-0
FY+1
FY+2
Profitability: FCF at IPO
However, within two fiscal years of IPO, ~half of public software companies analyzed are FCF positive
~2 years post IPO,
almost 50% of
companies are
profitable
% Companies with Positive FCF
by Year Surrounding IPO, Where FY+2 Actuals Available
Median FCF Margin
(14%) (13%)
(11%) (10%)
(6%) (3%)
(3%) (-1%)
All Companies Top Performers
Performance
Profitability: FCF by Year Surrounding IPO
By Year Surrounding IPO, Where FY+2 Actuals Available

Retention: Disclosures & Definitions
While most public software companies disclose some type of retention metric, companies tend to pick the most attractive
definition of net retention
Performance
• While 84% of software IPOs since 2013 have disclosed net
retention, definitions and exact calculations for this metric are
not uniform
• Companies should strive to balance simplicity and consistency
when considering which approach best highlights the strength of
their metrics:
• Some companies will exclude certain customer segments
in the net retention calculation but most clearly note this
• When calculating annual net retention figures based on a
certain period, companies can choose to use a straight
average, annualized figure, or weighted average
Common approaches to annual net retention calculations:
Compares the recurring revenue for a cohort of
customers against the same metric and cohort for the
prior 12-month period on a trailing basis
Quarterly revenue from expansion, net of churn and
downsell is annualized (multiplied by 4)
Annualized
Quarterly
Expansion
Compares the revenue for a cohort of customers in a
given period (month or quarter) to the same period in
the prior year. These results are averaged (straight or
weighted) with the results from each of the prior three
periods
Average of Periods
LTM Customer
Cohort Expansion
Time
Period
Calculation for Annual
Net Retention
Net Retention
Metric
ARR, 38%
Subscription
Revenue, 26%
Total Revenue,
19%
ACV, 13%
Billings, 4%
Quarter, 19%
Month,
21%
Annual (TTM), 60%
Straight average, 15%
Annualized, 8%
Weighted average, 8%
Not Disclosed, 6%
Aggregate, 4%
Analysis of SaaS IPO Disclosures
Select list of 62 IPOs from 2H2013 - 2020

Retention: LTM Net $ Retention
While average reported net retention likely skews high given the self-selective nature of disclosing this metric, median
performance hovers around ~115%, with companies reporting retention as high as ~190% prior to IPO
LTM Revenue ($M)
More information on disclosures can
be found on pages 49 - 56
Median Range
Overall 116% 90% – 187%
Performance
Retention: LTM Net $ Retention
LTM $ Retention (%) and Revenue ($M), Where Reported

Operating Expenses: LTM OpEx at Time of IPO
Operational efficiency has ranged widely across recent IPOs – with high performers reporting total OpEx as a percentage of
revenue as low as 73% and as high as 148%
LTM OpEx $
Median Range
Overall 93% 33% - 207%
G&A
R&D
S&M
240 308 313 178 595 361 356 110 139 220 143 225 188 272 113 331 217 91 93 130 189 161 97 79 112 129 97 81 227 121 122 452 103 108 223 291 271 134 263 852 103 113 116 91 140 188 77 159 40 82 123 254 445 208 67 45 62 54 111 113
Performance
Operating Expenses: Total OpEx as a % of Revenue leading up to IPO
LTM OpEx Split by Type over LTM Revenue at Time of IPO (%)

Operating Expenses: S&M Detail
S&M generally makes up the largest portion of total OpEx at time of IPO, at which point businesses have achieved significant
leverage in R&D and G&A and are focused on continued growth
Median Range
Overall 47% 6% - 117%
LTM S&M OpEx $
Performance
Operating Expenses: S&M OpEx as a % of Revenue leading up to IPO
LTM S&M OpEx over LTM Revenue at Time of IPO (%)
136 199 108 347 71 142 203 119 189 136 69 58 62 82 73 49 193 115 98 114 141 51 66 186 64 278 44 96 119 62 62 120 43 60 73 70 53 52 48 137 50 43 19 53 78 69 49 106 34 314 49 32 21 76 44 72 146 29 36 10

Operating Expenses: R&D Detail
R&D spend will vary based on product and development cycle, but has historically stayed below ~45% revenue across public
software companies analyzed with the exception of two outliers
Median Range
Overall 23% 2% - 67%
LTM R&D OpEx $
78 108 122 157 102 64 64 380 40 38 43 39 62 127 26 91 35 79 52 35 67 36 53 26 39 28 83 39 181 37 39 19 34 27 30 17 17 21 46 15 40 42 44 39 18 25 92 56 19 7 20 14 36 35 33 12 8 50 10 30 2
Performance
Operating Expenses: R&D OpEx as a % of Revenue leading up to IPO
LTM R&D OpEx over LTM Revenue at Time of IPO (%)

Operating Expenses: G&A Detail
G&A spend is almost always the smallest component of overall OpEx, but also varies quite widely across recent IPOs
Median Range
Overall 18% 3% - 37%
LTM G&A OpEx $
86 40 253 58 121 29 52 34 29 93 51 28 28 21 20 29 24 27 30 40 34 56 25 42 18 38 39 14 30 24 17 34 28 62 15 19 26 46 9 26 14 47 82 20 20 36 52 33 31 157 104 45 23 18 15 14 38 24 13 19 13
Performance
Operating Expenses: G&A OpEx by Type as a % of Revenue leading up to IPO
LTM G&A OpEx over LTM Revenue at Time of IPO (%)

Today
1
Market Cap
Since IPO, top performing public software companies have all been able to steadily grow market cap – the most recent of which
(Snowflake) has more than doubled market cap in its first quarter of being publicly traded
(At IPO) Median Range
Horizontal SaaS $1.6 $0.3 - $34
Vertical SaaS $2.8 $0.4 - $5.7
Top Performers $3.4 $0.7 - $34
Overall $1.6 $0.3 - $34
At
IPO Performance
Market Cap: At IPO vs. December 2020
$B, Enterprise SaaS IPOs Filed Last 7 Years
Notes: (1) IPO multiples reflects basic shares outstanding for market cap as received from Investment Banking pricing materials; (2) Market Cap at IPO based on IPO price (3) Information
provided is accurate as of 12/31/20
Source: FactSet, Public Filings for Software IPO June 2013 to December 2020

IPO Sizing
IPO offering size relative to market cap has varied from 4 to 35% across enterprise SaaS IPOs in the past ~7 years – however,
the majority of companies have remained in the 10-20% range
Median Range
Overall 12% 4% - 35%
IPO Offering ($M)
Market Cap at IPO ($M)
193 70 240 80 182 74 95 150 146 103 125 188 126 311 468 100 462 133 326 402 78 120 629 216 216 425 100 509 570 304 264 326 180 98 218 116 150 187 525 175 225 405 935 180 115 175 462 261 75 154 131 192 252 3360 756 612 250 648 751 78 237
553 259 1045 352 939 399 512 825 861 620 778 1193 807 2002 3025 647 3037 886 2220 2767 540 838 4506 1585 1605 3210 762 3972 4487 2395 2112 2611 1478 804 1799 958 1256 1571 4479 1510 1955 3528 8174 1585 1076 1656 4382 2484 716 1472 1285 1906 2540 33957 8343 6779 2816 7923 9343 1053 5747
Performance
IPO Offering Size as a % Market Cap
Notes: (1) IPO multiples reflects basic shares outstanding for market cap as received from Investment Banking pricing materials; (2) Market Cap at IPO based on IPO price (3) Information
provided is accurate as of 12/31/20

184 256 72 28 165 62 80 92 103 450 128 83 53 34 257 86 33 430 133 35 208 60 98 87 128 58 72 99 32 100 48 16 12 24 19 54 126 33 51 69 20 176 13 6 32 14 39 13 23 40 21 88 58 42 7 13 63 23 26 52 139 3
1053 1955 553 259 1656 647 886 1076 1256 5535 1799 1193 807 540 4506 1585 620 8343 2611 716 4382 1285 2220 2112 3210 1510 1906 2816 939 3037 1472 512 399 958 804 2395 5747 1605 2540 3528 1045 9343 762 352 2002 861 2484 825 1571 2767 1478 6779 4487 4479 778 1585 8174 3025 3972 7923 33957 838
Liquidity: Cash at Time of IPO
Pre-IPO, software companies analyzed typically have cash and cash equivalents of less than ~13% total market cap
Median Range
Horizontal SaaS 3% <1% - 13%
Top Performers 3% <1% - 9%
Overall 3% <1% - 13%
Cash & Cash Equivalents ($M)
Market Cap ($M)
Performance
Cash & Cash Equivalents as a % Market Cap
Notes: (1) IPO multiples reflects basic shares outstanding for market cap as received from Investment Banking pricing materials; (2) Market Cap at IPO based on IPO price; (3) Cash &
Cash Equivalents not inclusive of IPO proceeds (3) Information provided is accurate as of 12/31/20

Table of Contents
Disclosure & Filing

Pricing: Trading Multiples at Time of IPO
Multiples paid have been steadily rising over the past ~2 years, with average forward multiples across 2020 software IPOs
exceeding all historical software companies analyzed since 2013
Avg:
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
8.6 5.7x 5.4x 4.5x 4.1x 5.7x 9.1x 14.8x
Valuation
Forward Multiples at Time of IPO
EV / FY + 1 Revenue By Year of IPO (Chronological by IPO Year)
Notes: (1) IPO multiples reflects basic shares outstanding for market cap as received from Investment Banking pricing materials from Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs
(2) Information provided is accurate as of 12/31/20
Source: FactSet, Wall Street Research and Investment Banking materials from Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs

Year of IPO Avg. Software Multiple at IPO
(EV/FY + 1 Rev.)
Avg. Market
Multiple
(S&P)
Avg. Change in
Multiple
(Today vs. IPO)
Avg. Change in
Multiple
(Annualized)
2020 50% 50%
2019 152% 76%
2018 256% 85%
2017 232% 58%
2016 331% 66%
2015 174% 29%
2014 151% 22%
2H2013 170% 21%
Trading Multiples
Multiples for software companies included in this analysis are the highest they have been in 5+ years and continue to increase
post-IPO, despite the overall market being relatively stable from a valuation standpoint over the past ~3 years
In part, multiples for 2020 may be tied to the fact that only strong performers went public
this year given COVID-19 impact.
Multiples – Time of IPO
(EV / FY + 1 Revenue at time of IPO)
Multiples
–
Current
(EV
/
FY
+
1
Revenue
as
of
December
2020)
Snowflake not depicted
(off axis)
14.8x
9.1x
5.7x
4.1x
4.5x
5.4x
5.7x
8.6x
2.8x
2.4x
2.4x
2.3x
2.1x
2.1x
1.9x
1.8x
Valuation
Multiples at Time of IPO vs. December 2020
Forward Revenue Multiples, By Year of IPO
Average Multiple at IPO and Change vs. December 2020 by Year
Notes: (1) IPO multiples reflects basic shares outstanding for market cap as received from Investment Banking pricing materials from Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs
Source: FactSet, Wall Street Research and Investment Banking materials from Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs

Table of Contents
Disclosure & Filing

Deal Economics: By Number of Bookrunners
Over 50% of IPOs analyzed had either 2 or 3 bookrunners, with average lead left allocation consistently between ~32-40%,
regardless of bank
Lead Left
(% Deals with X
Bookrunners)
2 Bookrunners
(23% Deals Evaluated)
Overall Overall
Lead Left
2nd Bookrunner
3nd Bookrunner
Average #
Co-managers
Total % Allocation
to Co-managers
% Allocation:
Co-Managers
3 Bookrunners
(27% Deals Evaluated)
38% 40% 37% 34%
29% 28% 28% 34%
5.1 4.9 6.6 3.5
33% 32% 35% 33%
37% 36% 40% 32%
27% 26% 31% 24%
15% 16% 13% 16%
4.3 4.3 3.3 5.0
21% 22% 17% 30%
Morgan
Stanley
Goldman
Sachs Other
Morgan
Stanley
Goldman
Sachs Other
50%
36%
14%
53%
35%
12%
IPO Structure
Structure & Economics of Recent Software IPOs By Number of Bookrunners
Book-runners, Co-managers, and Respective Allocations
Notes: Information provided is accurate as of 12/31/20

Pricing: Day 1 “Pop” By Lead Left
Across the 62 software IPOs examined, ~59% of those led by Goldman Sachs had a Day 1 “Pop” of >40% vs. ~46% led by
Morgan Stanley
Goldman Sachs Morgan Stanley Other
>40% Day 1 Pop
10-40% Day 1Pop
<10% Day 1 Pop
7%
% IPOs
Top Performer
33% 59% 14% 39% 46% 71%
29%
IPO Structure
Recent Software IPO Performance by Lead Left Bookrunner: Day 1 Close “Pop” vs IPO Price
-2%
1%
11%
20% 26% 32% 34% 36% 38% 39% 40% 42% 42% 43% 43% 48% 49% 49% 51% 51% 52%
61%
71%
87% 92% 94%
112%
-6%
0% 6% 8% 11% 17% 20% 21% 22% 22% 25% 30% 30% 37% 39% 40% 47% 48% 51% 58% 59% 66% 72% 80% 85% 86%
106%
201%
2% 3%
41%
50%
62%
76%
195%
Sprout
Social
Mimecast
Alteryx
Cloudflare
Vertex
Atlassian
Ping
Identity
Dropbox
Okta
Blackline
RingCentral
Talend
Ceridian
Zuora
Anaplan
Duck
Creek…
Dynatrace
Zendesk
Health
Catalyst
Jamf
Bentley
Systems
Bill.com
Crowdstrike
Avalara
Twilio
Elastic
Snowflake
Pure
Storage
Pluralsight
Bandwidth
Sailpoint
Casa
Systems
Appfolio
Hubspot
Cloudera
Yext
SumoLogic
Appian
Smartsheet
Domo
DocuSign
Datadog
Asana
Jfrog
New
Relic
Shopify
Rapid7
PagerDuty
Box
Zoom
FireEye
Coupa
Veeva
ZScaler
BigCommerce
Paycom
Cardlytics
Paylocity
Fastly
Zoominfo
Medallia
nCino

Deal Economics: Bookrunners
Across the 62 IPOs included in this analysis, Morgan Stanley was the most common lead left bookrunner with 35% allocation
across all deals (whether or not leading)
Avg. Day 1 “Pop”
(Day 1 close vs. pricing, %)
% Total Offering Allocated
(Regardless of whether lead left)
Average
IPO Offering Size ($M)
# IPOs Led
in Dataset
28
26
4
1
1
1
35%
34%
19%
26%
14%
15%
$366
$401
$352
$412
$293
$452
46%
48%
53%
49%
62%
52%
IPO Structure
Software IPO Economics, Structure, Performance: By Most Common Bookrunners
61%
57%
63%
63%
78%
53%
56%
71%
58%
56%
65%
42%
Avg. 30 Day Price %
Change from Offering
6 Month Price %
Notes: (1) Trademarks are the property of their respective owners. None of the companies illustrated have endorsed or recommend the services of ICONIQ. (2) Information provided is accurate as of 12/31/20

Deal Economics: By Lead Left
Average co-manager allocation typically remains in the 4-6% range; KeyBanc/Pacific Crest has been the most common co-
manager in the past ~6 years, typically with the largest allocation amongst co-managers
Avg. Day 1 “Pop”
(Day 1 close vs. pricing, %)
% Total Offering
Allocated
Average
IPO Offering Size ($M)
# IPOs Led
in Dataset
6%
4%
4%
5%
5%
$244
$510
$400
$316
$246
41%
47%
52%
43%
51%
IPO Structure
Software IPO Economics, Structure, Performance: By Most Common Co-Managers
13
5
4
4
2
30 Day Price %
6 Month Price %
59%
52%
70%
54%
62%
55%
51%
76%
53%
42%
Notes: (1) Trademarks are the property of their respective owners. None of the companies illustrated have endorsed or recommend the services of ICONIQ. (2) Information provided is accurate as of 12/31/20

Deal Economics – Co Managers
The most common deal structures have historically had either 3 or 4 co-managers, with anywhere from 3 to 7% being allocated
to each
Occurrence
(% Deals)
1
% Allocation by
Co-Manager:
Total % Allocation
to Bookrunners:
Total Co-Managers 2 3 4 5 6+
3
(6%)
8
(15%)
14
(26%)
12
(22%)
6
(11%)
6
(11%)
1
2
3
4
5
6+
95% 86% 83% 79% 75% 73%
4% 7%
7%
7%
6%
5%
7%
6%
5%
3%
6%
5%
4%
3%
3%
5%
5%
5%
3%
3%
5%
IPO Structure
Structure & Economics of Recent Software IPOs by Number of Co-Managers
Bookrunners, Co-managers, and Respective Allocations

Table of Contents
Disclosure & Filing

Public Disclosure of Key Metrics: IPO vs Ongoing
Based on benchmarking of 76 software companies, 95% of companies have disclosed number of customers and 83%
a dollar-based net retention figure at the time of IPO; the majority continue ongoing disclosure in 10-Ks, 10-Qs
Software IPO Disclosure Ongoing Disclosure
S-1 / 424B4s 10-K s 10-Qs
Metric
# of
Companies % Total
# of
Companies % Total
# of
Companies % Total
Number of Customers 73 55 45
Net Retention / Expansion Analysis 64 47 41
Cohort Analysis 40 3 0
# of Large Customers 34 22 20
Non-GAAP FCF 31 30 30
Backlog 18 18 10
Contribution Margin 21 17 19
Bookings / Billings 16 15 14
Active Users 21 9 6
Non-GAAP EBITDA 21 13 17
ARR 16 11 13
Number of Enterprise Accounts 12 11 9
ACV 8 4 3
CAC 1 0 0
At IPO
Quarterly
Annually
95%
83%
52%
44%
40%
23%
27%
21%
27%
27%
21%
16%
10%
1%
89%
76%
5%
35%
48%
29%
27%
24%
15%
21%
18%
18%
6%
66%
60%
29%
44%
15%
28%
21%
9%
25%
19%
13%
4%
Notes: (1) Net retention / expansion includes company specific retention rates (e.g., subscription revenue retention); (2) Contribution margin reflects a non-GAAP margin adjusted or net contribution margin

Public Disclosure of Key Metrics: Company Detail at IPO
During the time of IPO, most software companies disclose key metrics on customer performance beyond retention /
expansion rates, in particular number of customers and performances of cohorts
At IPO
Quarterly
Annually
Company
Name
Number of
Customers
Net Retention
Analysis /
Expansion
Cohort
Analysis
# of Large
Customers
Non-GAAP
FCF
Contribution
Margin
Bookings /
Billings
Backlog ACV Active Users
Number of
Enterprise
Accounts
Non-GAAP
EBITDA
CAC ARR
Alteryx
Anaplan
AppDynamics
AppFolio
Appian
Apptio
Asana
Atlassian
Avalara
Bandwidth
Bentley Systems
Big Commerce
Bill.com
Blackline
Box
Carbon Black
Cardlytics
Casa Systems
Ceridian
Cloudera
Cloudflare
Coupa
Crowdstrike
Datadog
DocuSign
Domo
Dropbox
Duck Creek
Technologies
Dynatrace
Elastic
Fastly
FireEye
Forescout
Health Catalyst
HubSpot
Instructure
Jamf
Jfrog
Livongo

Public Disclosure of Key Metrics: Company Detail at IPO (cont.) At IPO
Quarterly
Annually
Company
Name
Number of
Customers
Net Retention
Analysis /
Expansion
Cohort
Analysis
# of Large
Customers
Non-GAAP
FCF
Contribution
Margin
Bookings /
Billings
Number of
Enterprise
Accounts
Non-GAAP
EBITDA
CAC ARR
Medallia
Mimecast
Mindbody
MuleSoft
nCino
New Relic
Okta
PagerDuty
Paycom
Paylocity
Ping Identity
Pivotal
Pluralsight
Pure Storage
Qualtrics
Rapid7
SailPoint
SendGrid
ServiceNow
Shopify
Slack
Smartsheet
Snowflake
Splunk
Sprout Social
Sumologic
Talend
Twilio
Veeva
Vertex
Workday
Yext
Zendesk
Zoom
ZoomInfo
ZScaler
Zuora
During the time of IPO, most software companies disclose key metrics on customer performance beyond retention /
expansion rates, in particular number of customers and performances of cohorts

Public Disclosure of Key Metrics: Company Detail Annually
On an annual basis, software companies have seen significant disclosure reduction for customer performance, while
most best of breed companies still disclose number of customers and net retention / expansion rates
At IPO
Quarterly
Annually
Company
Name
Number of
Customers
Net Retention /
Expansion
Analysis¹
Cohort
Analysis
# of Large
Customers
Non-GAAP
FCF
Contribution
Margin²
Bookings /
Billings
Number of
Enterprise
Accounts
Non-GAAP
EBITDA
CAC ARR
Alteryx
Anaplan
AppDynamics
AppFolio
Appian
Apptio
Asana
Atlassian
Avalara
Bandwidth
Bentley Systems
Big Commerce
Bill.com
Blackline
Box
Carbon Black
Cardlytics
Casa Systems
Ceridian
Cloudera
Cloudflare
Coupa
Crowdstrike
Datadog
DocuSign
Domo
Dropbox
Duck Creek
Technologies
Dynatrace
Elastic
Fastly
FireEye
Forescout
Health Catalyst
HubSpot
Instructure
Jamf
Jfrog
Livongo

Public Disclosure of Key Metrics: Company Detail Annually
On an annual basis, software companies have seen significant disclosure reduction for customer performance, while
most best of breed companies still disclose number of customers and net retention / expansion rates
At IPO
Quarterly
Annually
Company
Name
Number of
Customers
Net Retention /
Expansion
Analysis¹
Cohort
Analysis
# of Large
Customers
Non-GAAP
FCF
Contribution
Margin²
Bookings /
Billings
Number of
Enterprise
Accounts
Non-GAAP
EBITDA
CAC ARR
Medallia
Mimecast
Mindbody
MuleSoft
nCino
New Relic
Okta
PagerDuty
Paycom
Paylocity
Ping Identity
Pivotal
Pluralsight
Pure Storage
Qualtrics
Rapid7
SailPoint
SendGrid
ServiceNow
Shopify
Slack
Smartsheet
Snowflake
Splunk
Sprout Social
Sumologic
Talend
Twilio
Veeva
Vertex
Workday
Yext
Zendesk
Zoom
ZoomInfo
ZScaler
Zuora

Public Disclosure of Key Metrics: Company Detail Quarterly
On a quarterly basis, software companies have maintained consistent disclosure practices to the annual filings
At IPO
Quarterly
Annually
Company
Name
Number of
Customers
Net Retention /
Expansion
Analysis¹
Cohort
Analysis
# of Large
Customers
Non-GAAP
FCF
Contribution
Margin²
Bookings /
Billings
Number of
Enterprise
Accounts
Non-GAAP
EBITDA
CAC ARR
Alteryx
Anaplan
AppDynamics
AppFolio
Appian
Apptio
Asana
Atlassian
Avalara
Bandwidth
Bentley Systems
Big Commerce
Bill.com
Blackline
Box
Carbon Black
Cardlytics
Casa Systems
Ceridian
Cloudera
Cloudflare
Coupa
Crowdstrike
Datadog
DocuSign
Domo
Dropbox
Duck Creek
Technologies
Dynatrace
Elastic
Fastly
FireEye
Forescout
Health Catalyst
HubSpot
Instructure
Jamf
Jfrog
Livongo

Public Disclosure of Key Metrics: Company Detail Quarterly
On a quarterly basis, software companies have maintained consistent disclosure practices to the annual filings
At IPO
Quarterly
Annually
Company
Name
Number of
Customers
Net Retention /
Expansion
Analysis¹
Cohort
Analysis
# of Large
Customers
Non-GAAP
FCF
Contribution
Margin²
Bookings /
Billings
Number of
Enterprise
Accounts
Non-GAAP
EBITDA
CAC ARR
Medallia
Mimecast
Mindbody
MuleSoft
nCino
New Relic
Okta
PagerDuty
Paycom
Paylocity
Ping Identity
Pivotal
Pluralsight
Pure Storage
Qualtrics
Rapid7
SailPoint
SendGrid
ServiceNow
Shopify
Slack
Smartsheet
Snowflake
Splunk
Sprout Social
Sumologic
Talend
Twilio
Veeva
Vertex
Workday
Yext
Zendesk
Zoom
ZoomInfo
ZScaler
Zuora

53
Appendix:
Case Studies + Additional Detail

Case Study: Horizontal SaaS
“Top Performer” Profile Leading Up to and Post-IPO
Zoom offers a cloud platform for video, phone, content sharing, and chat
Scale & Growth – Revenue ($M, YoY Growth)
Profitability – Free Cash Flow ($M, % Revenue)
Key Metrics at IPO (LTM or Time of IPO)
Performance to Date
NYSE: ZM
IPO Date: 4/18/2019
STOCK PRICE PERFORMANCE TO DATE
FCF
Margin
6% 7% 19%
Strong performance driven by:
• Scalable and sustainable business model
• Generating positive cash flow from operations and seeing rapid revenue growth
• Serving customers of all sizes across industry verticals and geographies, driving
continued YoY growth
• Product ease of use
• Reliable, high-quality video that is easy to use, manage, and deploy, which provides a
high ROI, is scalable, and easily integrates with physical spaces and applications
Median –
Horizontal SaaS
Revenue: $331M $160M
YoY Growth: 118% 49%
Gross Margin: 82% 72%
FCF: $23M -$17M
Rule of 40: 125% 41%
Total Operating Expenses: $263M $140M
Market Cap: $9,343M $1,600M
Cash & Cash Equivalents: $176M $58M
IPO Price: $36
Current Stock Price1: $353
YoY
Growth 118% 88%
Earnings
149%
7%
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
4/18/2019 7/18/2019 10/18/2019 1/18/2020 4/18/2020 7/18/2020 10/18/2020
$61
$151
$331
$623
FY-2 FY-1 FY-0 FY+1
$5 $10
$23
$119
FY-2 FY-1 FY-0 FY+1
Notes: (1) “Current” represents data as of 12/31/20; (2) Market Cap based on IPO price; (3) Cash & Cash Equivalents not inclusive of IPO proceeds (4) Trademarks are the property of their respective
owners. None of the companies illustrated have endorsed or recommend the services of ICONIQ.

$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
9/19/2019 12/19/2019 3/19/2020 6/19/2020 9/19/2020 12/19/2020
Datadog offers a SaaS-based monitoring service for cloud-scale applications
Performance to Date
NYSE: DDOG
IPO Date: 9/19/2019
FCF
Margin
-5% -10% 3%
• Product innovation
• Addition of new features, providing deeper visibility into engineering teams’ distributed
applications and infrastructure
• Surpassed over 400 out-of-the-box supported integrations, bringing its teams,
infrastructure and applications to the next level of scale and velocity
• Net expansion >130% every quarter
• Continued growth of customer base
• Growth of customers with ARR >$100,000, driving significant revenue growth
Median –
Horizontal SaaS
YoY Growth: 82% 49%
FCF: -$33M -$17M
Rule of 40: 70% 41%
IPO Price: $27
YoY
Growth
97% 83%
Earnings
$101
$198
$363
FY-2 FY-1 FY-0 FY+1
-$5
-$20
$11
FY-2 FY-1 FY-0 FY+1

Snowflake provides a data warehouse built for the cloud
Performance to Date
NYSE: SNOW
IPO Date: 9/16/2020
FCF
Margin
-151% -74%
• Successful expansion of product and customer base
• Continued addition and improvement of features, leveraging the elasticity and
performance of the public cloud
• Used globally by organizations of all sizes across a broad range of industries
• Unique product
• Decoupled architecture that allows for compute and storage to scale separately
• Cloud agnostic, with seamless scalability across AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud
Median –
Horizontal SaaS
YoY Growth: 138% 49%
FCF: -$126M -$17M
Rule of 40: 106% 41%
Market Cap: $33,957M $1,600M
IPO Price: $120
YoY Growth 174%
Earnings
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
9/16/2020 10/16/2020 11/16/2020 12/16/2020
$97
$265
FY-2 FY-1 FY-0
-$146
-$195
FY-2 FY-1 FY-0

$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
10/16/2013 10/16/2014 10/16/2015 10/16/2016 10/16/2017 10/16/2018 10/16/2019 10/16/2020
Case Study: Vertical SaaS
Veeva offers a suite of cloud-based business solutions for the global life sciences industry
Performance to Date
NYSE: VEEV
IPO Date: 10/16/2013
$29
$61
$130
$210
$313
FY-2 FY-1 FY-0 FY+1 FY+2
YoY Growth 110% 111% 62% 49%
$4 $4
$30
$40 $41
FY-2 FY-1 FY-0 FY+1 FY+2
FCF
Margin
15% 7% 23% 19% 13%
• Continued growth and efficiency
• Steadily increasing gross margin to >70%
• Acquisition of increasingly large customers
• Successful Product expansion
• Built suite of modules on top of original product, expanding revenue and upsell
capabilities
• Ability to consistently forecast and meet or beat expectations
Median – Vertical
SaaS
YoY Growth: 98% 50%
FCF: $35M $19M
Rule of 40: 119% 37%
IPO Price: $20
Earnings

Case Study: Vertical SaaS
nCino is a global provider of cloud-based software for financial institutions
Performance to Date
NYSE: NCNO
IPO Date: 7/14/2020
YoY
Growth 57%
FCF
Margin
-32% -14%
• Strengthened product functionality
• Product development and global expansion initiatives continue to drive revenue
growth
• Continued expansion of customer base
• Increased number of financial institutions and a diverse customer base utilizing its
solution
• Significant investments to expand its presence in Europe, Middle East and Africa
Median – Vertical
SaaS
YoY Growth: 50% 50%
FCF: -$9M $19M
Rule of 40: 43% 37%
IPO Price: $31
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
7/14/2020 8/14/2020 9/14/2020 10/14/2020 11/14/2020 12/14/2020
Earnings
$58
$92
$138
FY-2 FY-1 FY-0
-$18.8
-$12.6
-$14.8
FY-2 FY-1 FY-0
51%
-11%

The market has continued to reward Rule of 40 companies in recent years. Top quartile Rule of 40 companies have seen a
median offer to 30 day performance of 91% in the last two years
Company IPO Date
Market Cap at
IPO ($Ms)
LTM Rev YoY
Growth (%)
LTM
Rule of 40 (%)
LTM Net Retention
(%)
LTM
Gross Margin (%)
Forward Multiple at IPO
30 Day Price % Change from
Offering
BigCommerce 8/5/2020 $1,605 30% -4% - 71%
nCino 7/14/2020 $2,816 50% 43% - 55%
Zoominfo 6/5/2020 $8,174 104% 116% 109% 78%
Snowflake 9/16/2020 $33,957 138% 106% 164% 61%
Jfrog 9/16/2020 $3,972 112% 122% 139% 81%
Bentley Systems 9/24/2020 $5,747 11% 37% 110% 81%
Jamf 7/23/2020 $3,025 35% 36% 120% 75%
Vertex 7/30/2020 $2,767 18% 33% 109% 61%
Duck Creek Tech. 8/17/2020 $3,528 23% 33% 113% 56%
Asana 9/30/2020 $5,535 71% 24% 115% 87%
SumoLogic 9/17/2020 $2,220 42% 8% 130% 70%
Company IPO Date
Market Cap at
IPO ($Ms)
LTM Rev YoY
Growth (%)
LTM
Rule of 40 (%)
LTM Net Retention
(%)
LTM
Gross Margin (%)
Forward Multiple at IPO
30 Day Price % Change from
Offering
Zoom 4/18/2019 $9,343 118% 125% 140% 82%
Crowdstrike 6/14/2019 $6,779 - - 147% 67%
PagerDuty 4/11/2019 $1,799 48% 40% 140% 85%
Medallia 7/19/2019 $2,611 25% 17% 119% 64%
Bill.com 12/12/2019 $1,585 63% 57% - 73%
Health Catalyst 7/25/2019 $939 64% 30% 107% 53%
Dynatrace 8/1/2019 $4,487 12% - - -
Fastly 5/17/2019 $1,478 39% 13% 130% 56%
Datadog 9/19/2019 $7,923 82% 70% 146% 74%
Cloudflare 9/13/2019 $4,479 40% 7% 113% 77%
Ping Identity 9/20/2019 $1,193 10% 17% 115% 77%
Sprout Social 12/13/2019 $825 37% 21% 106% 74%
10.0x
11.1x
15.4x
36.8x
21.3x
9.8x
10.1x
7.0x
12.0x
18.6x
10.4x
346%
173%
115%
102%
82%
66%
54%
48%
46%
8%
0%
14.6x
11.9x
8.7x
6.9x
9.2x
4.6x
8.3x
5.6x
17.4x
11.6x
4.7x
5.7x
150%
116%
116%
89%
80%
49%
44%
24%
17%
10%
8%
7%
2020 SaaS IPOs
2019 SaaS IPOs

The market has historically rewarded companies with strong growth and healthy margins. Top quartile Rule of 40 companies
have seen a median offer to 30 day performance of 69% from 2013 - 2018
2013 - 2018 SaaS IPOs
Company IPO Date
Market Cap at
IPO ($Ms)
LTM Rev YoY Growth
(%)
LTM
Rule of 40 (%)
LTM Net
Retention (%)
LTM
Gross Margin (%)
Forward Multiple at IPO 30 Day Price % Change from Offering
Pluralsight 5/17/2018 $2,002 54% 35% 120% 70%
Avalara 6/15/2018 $1,585 29% 18% 107% 73%
Elastic 10/5/2018 $2,540 79% 64% 142% 71%
Zscaler 3/16/2018 $1,906 54% 41% 122% 79%
DocuSign 4/27/2018 $4,506 36% 43% 115% 77%
Ceridian 4/26/2018 $3,037 7% -1% 95% 50%
Smartsheet 4/27/2018 $1,510 66% 43% 130% 81%
Zuora 4/12/2018 $1,472 49% 31% 110% 52%
Anaplan 10/12/2018 $2,112 76% 72% 123% 71%
Dropbox 3/23/2018 $8,343 31% 59% 90% 67%
Cardlytics 2/9/2018 $259 16% 32% - 38%
Domo 6/29/2018 $553 45% -88% 105% 60%
Casa Systems 12/15/2017 $1,053 8% 17% - 73%
Appian 5/26/2017 $716 9% - 117% 64%
Cloudera 4/28/2017 $1,955 57% 10% 142% 67%
Okta 4/7/2017 $1,571 87% 56% 123% 65%
Yext 4/13/2017 $958 49% 40% 119% 70%
Sailpoint 11/17/2017 $1,045 45% 49% - 74%
Alteryx 3/24/2017 $807 59% 47% 120% 81%
Bandwidth 11/13/2017 $352 9% 11% 107% 45%
Twilio 6/23/2016 $1,256 84% 78% 170% 56%
Talend 7/29/2016 $512 21% 7% 115% 75%
Blackline 10/28/2016 $861 - - 119% 74%
Coupa 10/6/2016 $886 71% 46% - 62%
Shopify 5/21/2015 $1,285 106% 121% - 58%
Rapid7 7/17/2015 $620 33% 41% - 75%
Box 1/23/2015 $1,656 83% 15% 130% 79%
Atlassian 12/10/2015 $4,382 54% 74% 100% 84%
Appfolio 6/26/2015 $399 81% 65% - 54%
Pure Storage 10/7/2015 $3,210 239% 184% - 58%
Mimecast 11/19/2015 $540 24% 38% 108% 70%
Zendesk 5/16/2014 $647 84% 78% - 66%
New Relic 12/12/2014 $1,076 93% 53% 115% 82%
Hubspot 10/10/2014 $778 46% 21% 90% 66%
Paylocity 3/19/2014 $838 49% 52% 92% 48%
Paycom 4/15/2014 $762 40% 46% 91% 81%
FireEye 9/20/2013 $2,395 121% 98% - 82%
Veeva 10/16/2013 $2,484 98% 119% 187% 59%
RingCentral 9/27/2013 $804 49% 28% 99% 62%
6.8x
4.6x
9.7x
6.9x
6.4x
4.6x
6.9x
5.4x
7.6x
5.6x
1.1x
2.6x
3.4x
3.7x
4.8x
5.6x
4.5x
4.9x
4.2x
2.0x
3.9x
3.5x
5.2x
5.3x
6.2x
4.5x
5.7x
9.0x
3.3x
5.4x
3.4x
3.7x
8.0x
5.5x
5.6x
4.3x
10.8x
10.7x
4.4x
89%
82%
79%
72%
60%
53%
50%
44%
42%
38%
36%
-21%
58%
54%
49%
48%
25%
20%
10%
6%
172%
61%
58%
40%
109%
37%
35%
29%
23%
4%
-1%
86%
47%
47%
14%
-5%
112%
93%
43%

ICONIQ Analytics - IPO Preparedness and Performance 2021

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie ICONIQ Analytics - IPO Preparedness and Performance 2021

Ähnlich wie ICONIQ Analytics - IPO Preparedness and Performance 2021 (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

ICONIQ Analytics - IPO Preparedness and Performance 2021