The one place the record is unambiguous
Across every sector we examined, published valuation figures disagreed: on the number, on the measure, on which convention applies, on which segment ranks highest. Restaurants are the exception, and the agreement is exact rather than approximate.
Ad Astra Equity, updated 5 June 2026, reports 1.5x to 3.0x owner earnings for single unit owner operated restaurants. CT Acquisitions, verified 5 June 2026, reports 1.5x to 3x owner earnings for typical operations. Same measure, same band, two independent publishers.
A third source tests that agreement against completed sales rather than advice. BizBuySell transaction data covering 2021 through 2025 reports that the middle half of restaurants recorded as sold fell between 1.34x and 2.53x owner earnings. That overlaps most of the agreed band while sitting a little below it, in the same direction the transaction figures run in every trade in this series. The advisory range is not contradicted. It is bracketed, slightly high.
Our estimator marks the sector as supported, and leads with what restaurants recorded as sold actually cleared. Then the useful part begins, because in this trade a clean industry range explains less about a specific deal than almost anywhere else.
What the agreed range covers, and what it does not
Both publishers are careful to scope the figure, and reading that scope matters more than the number.
Ad Astra attaches 1.5x to 3.0x specifically to a single unit where the owner runs the shifts, and states that the buyer pool is individuals and SBA borrowers. It reports a different band, 3.0x to 5.0x owner earnings, for a profitable single unit independent, and it says the basis shifts to EBITDA at roughly $5 million of revenue or fifty employees, at which point multi unit manager run groups trade at 4.0x to 7.0x EBITDA and scaled platforms higher still.
CT Acquisitions splits by format rather than by structure, reporting franchised quick service at 2.5x to 3.5x owner earnings, full service casual dining at 1.5x to 2.5x, fine dining at 1.5x to 2.5x with liquor licence value handled separately, and multi unit franchisees with five or more locations at 3x to 4x.
So the headline agreement is real, and it applies to a narrower slice of the restaurant market than the phrase suggests.
Why the multiple is rarely the decisive number
In most sectors we have examined, the multiple is the main lever and the record either supports it or does not. Restaurants work differently, because two structural items can override the calculation entirely.
The first is the lease. Location is much of the value, the lease usually requires landlord consent to assign, and the remaining term sets a ceiling on what a buyer will commit. A strong operation on a short lease with no options is a materially different proposition from the same operation with ten years secured, and no multiple reconciles the two.
The second is licence transfer. Liquor and operating licences transfer on state and local rules rather than on what the parties agree. Timelines, conditions, and sometimes eligibility are discovered during diligence, and they can delay or prevent a closing that the numbers fully supported.
Both are binary in a way a multiple is not. They do not adjust the price by a turn. They determine whether there is a transaction.
The number that gets contested is the earnings, not the multiple
Where the multiple is agreed, the argument moves to what it is applied to.
Buyers and their lenders compare point of sale reporting, bank deposits, and tax returns. In a cash intensive business those three can diverge, and where they do the lower figure tends to prevail, because it is the one a lender will underwrite.
Food and labour cost is the second contested area, particularly where it has been measured inconsistently across periods or where owner compensation and family labour have not been treated consistently.
None of that is about the market. It is about whether the operation's own records tell one story, and it is decided before the multiple is ever applied.
What agreement between publishers is worth
It is worth something real. An owner in this sector can benchmark with more confidence than an owner in community association management or pest control, and that is a genuine advantage.
It is also worth being precise about what it establishes. Two publishers agreeing means the trade has a describable range for a defined kind of operation. It does not mean the range applies to your restaurant, and in a sector where the lease and the licences carry this much weight, the industry figure is a starting point rather than a conclusion.
What a buyer examines
Diligence concentrates on the structural items first and the numbers second.
- Lease term, renewal options, rent escalation, and assignment provisions
- Liquor and operating licence transfer requirements and realistic timelines
- Point of sale reporting reconciled against deposits and tax returns
- Food and labour cost measured consistently across periods
- Equipment ownership against leases, and remaining useful life
- Health inspection history and any outstanding items
- Dependence on the owner, a head chef, or a single manager
What to prepare
Start with the lease, because it is the item most likely to decide the outcome and the one least amenable to fixing late. Know the remaining term, the options, the assignment clause, and whether the landlord has any history of consent conditions.
Then reconcile the numbers before a lender does it for you. If point of sale, deposits, and returns disagree, understand why and be able to explain it from records rather than from memory.
Verelume reads contracts, financials, and operating records and reports what the record supports, where documents conflict, and where a claim has no documentation behind it. In a sector where the published multiple is settled, the remaining risk sits almost entirely in whether your own documents agree with each other.