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.