Comps in M&A: A 2-Company Case Study

Comparable Company Analysis (CCA) in M&A separates value from rumor. It stacks up peers that match you in size, growth, margins, and business model, then uses those multiples to ground a valuation. In practice, CCA is a disciplined process: select peers, pull clean financials, normalize for one-offs, and apply EV/EBITDA (Enterprise value to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization ratio) and P/E across the group. The goal is defensible valuation, not hoping the market aligns with a narrative.

In today’s market, CCA ties deal pricing to observable benchmarks. Deloitte’s takeaway from over 2,000 major deals since 2015 shows that when acquirers hit synergistic targets, they deliver about 1.3x the value of publicly stated cost synergies. That informs how you translate multiples into price expectations and how you judge whether a premium is justifiable. The data also show that companies pursuing synergies outperform deal targets by about 23% on average, so credible synergy planning should influence peer selection and implied valuation in a comps analysis.

Let me lay out a real-world frame using recent, verifiable transactions. Walgreens Boots Alliance (WBA) was acquired by Sycamore Partners for roughly $10.0 billion in 2025. That deal sits in the M&A archives as a high-visibility example where large-cap consumer/health sectors met a private equity sponsor’s consolidation strategy. PepsiCo’s $1.95 billion acquisition of VNGR Beverage LLC, known as Poppi, in 2025, shows a different circle of peers, beverage/functional brands, where growth vectors and margin profiles can tilt EV/EBITDA and P/E outcomes differently than in pharma-retail. Then there’s the Greencore Group plc acquisition of Bakkavor Group plc for $1.55 billion, a deal that created a diversified convenience foods platform and split ownership roughly 56% to Greencore and 44% to Bakkavor’s existing holders. Each outcome adds data points to a comp set you’d use when pricing a deal with a similar vertical, scale, and margin structure.

The mechanics of comps work like this. Start with a peer group that shares industry, size, growth trajectory, and business model. For a grocery/retail/consumer group, pull EV/EBITDA, EV/Sales, and P/E multiples from the target’s closest comparables, ideally peers with similar mix, geography, and channel exposure.

Adjust for one-offs, tax structures, and nonrecurring items so you avoid a distorted multiple. The most defensible value comes from cross-checking multiples against precedent transactions and the target’s own financial trajectory under current strategy.

In the XYZ Tech example, the acquisition achieved a 20% premium over market projections through precise peer selection and Excel-based comps analysis. This result underscores two points: the peer set quality matters more than the absolute premium size; disciplined normalization and transparent methodology matter as much as the numbers. Practically, document your peer list, justify each member’s belonging, and show how you normalize nonrecurring items so multiples reflect ongoing economics.

Case study: WBA and Sycamore sit in the same family of deals where scale, channel mix, and capital structure drive multiple compression or expansion. If you construct a CCA for a hypothetical parallel deal, identify peers in mass retail, pharmacy, and health services with similar revenue scale and geographic exposure. Gather EV/EBITDA and P/E multiples from those peers in the last 12-24 months, then adjust for Sycamore’s financing structure versus public market multiples. The premium a purchaser pays often reflects strategic rationale beyond cash flow, such as accelerated cost takeouts or asset divestitures to streamline the platform. In WBA’s case, the deal value signals strategic repositioning in a crowded health and consumer space, where a private equity sponsor aims to lock in margin expansion and accelerated returns. While the exact premium versus prior projections isn’t disclosed, the $10B price signals alignment with the acquirer’s transformation thesis, which you test in a comps framework.

Comparing the WBA/Sycamore outcome to Poppi and Greencore/Bakkavor rounds out the picture. Poppi’s $1.95B price tag sits in a different sector cadence, consumer beverages with growth levers in branding, distribution, and product line extension. Greencore’s $1.55B deal in the food services space points to consolidation in manufacturing and supply chain optimization, with a governance structure in the ownership split. Investors price deals against the same metrics, enterprise value relative to EBITDA, earnings multiples, and the implied growth path. The message for practitioners is simple: the comps must reflect the deal’s strategic logic. If advising a plant-based beverage maker seeking distribution scale, include peers with comparable distribution networks and margin profiles, not just beverage names.

A broader data backdrop supports the approach. In 2025, US M&A activity rose about 10% quarter-to-quarter in Q3, while global volumes fell 9% in H1 2025 vs H1 2024, yet deal values rose 15% in the same period. This indicates the deal structure matters as much as price. Growth transformers in M&A have driven 464% higher shareholder returns versus the S&P 1200 average, underscoring the payoff of disciplined, data-driven deal design. Beyond price, value comes from delivering synergies. Deloitte’s work shows a 1.3x multiple of stated synergies when integration hits plan, which explains 23% outperformance against deal targets on average when teams execute rigorously. This supports embedding robust synergy planning into the comps narrative.

From a practical standpoint, when doing CCA in M&A pricing today, you should: 1) assemble a tight peer set aligned to the target’s business model and growth profile; 2) normalize earnings and cash flows to remove distortions; 3) test multiple valuation lenses (EV/EBITDA, P/E, and, where relevant, EV/Revenue); 4) anchor premium discussions to precedent transactions and the buyer’s strategic rationale; 5) incorporate synergy delivery expectations and financing structure in the model; 6) document sources and rationales for every peer and every adjustment so the valuation stands up to scrutiny.

In short, CCA remains a core tool for IPO pricing, M&A analyses, and investment decisions. It is not just about the numbers; it is about the story the numbers tell when you compare apples to apples across a disciplined peer group. For readers who want to go deeper, keep an eye on the Matactic glossary for terms, and consider signing up for our free M&A course to sharpen comp workflows and scenario testing.

Practical takeaway: when modeling a deal, your comps are the backbone. Do not cherry-pick peers to fit a narrative. Build a defensible peer set, normalize carefully, and align the result with the acquirer’s strategic thesis. If you want more terms explained and hands-on practice, explore Matactic’s resources and enroll in the free M&A course.