The ARR multiple fallacy ARR multiple is not the right way to think about sub-20% growers. Simple framework: If you’re growing sub-20%, you get a 10-30x EBIDTA or FCF multiple. If you use this rubric, Miro is very fairly valued by Bending Spoons. Only 30%+ growers get the luxury of an ARR multiple. The reason is that 30% growth means you’re doubling in 3 years and so the revenue base will be 2x in 36 months, and the margin structure will look different at 2x scale. Cash flow today is a rounding error against that. So you value the trajectory, and ARR is the cleanest proxy for trajectory. At 15% growth, doubling takes 5 years. That's close enough to "never" that the market stops paying for the future and starts paying for the present. The present is earnings. If you're not producing them, you're not a growth company anymore. You're a bad value company. The mistake founders make is anchoring to the multiple they had at 40% growth and thinking the ARR multiple just compresses. It doesn't compress. It gets replaced. You cross 30% on the way down and the entire valuation framework switches out from under you. Which is why the worst place to be is 20-30% growth with no FCF. Growth investors won't pay for it. Value investors can't. You're priced by whoever is least excited,a really painful place to be.

Radical is getting ready to take the next step in our growth as a company. We are the best self-driving lab company in the world, and now we will have the space to prove it.