Education Technology Software Sector Outlook — September 2026

Read the report

SlidesScroll

1 of 21

←→Full screen

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY › SOFTWARE AND SERVICES › EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARE

Education Technology Software: Value Splits by Model

This report shows where public valuations and precedent transactions place emphasis across the sector.

September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential

Market data as of 2026-09-28 · primary valuation basis EV / EBITDA (CY2027E)

Education Technology Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice

Sources & methodology

1

← Previous

1 / 21 · INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY › SOFTWARE AND SERVICES › EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARE

Next →

What each page shows

The analyst’s walkthrough of the deck, page by page.

1. 01

   INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY › SOFTWARE AND SERVICES › EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARE

   This is the cover page identifying the sector, the report date and the primary valuation basis.

   We're looking at the Education Technology Software sector as of September 25, 2026, valued on EV/EBITDA against CY2027E consensus estimates. This report's central finding is that the sector splits into distinct pricing groups — the pages that follow show where each name sits and why that matters for your next move.

   Everything on this page

   INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY › SOFTWARE AND SERVICES › EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARE Education Technology Software: Value Splits by Model This report shows where public valuations and precedent transactions place emphasis across the sector. September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential Market data as of 2026-09-28 · primary valuation basis EV / EBITDA (CY2027E) Education Technology Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 1

2. 02
   CONTENTS

   What This Report Covers

   This page lists the report's five sections plus the appendix, in the order they appear.

   We've structured this report so the bottom line comes first — you can stop after section one and still have the complete story. From there we walk through the market landscape, valuation and situations, precedent transactions and strategic implications, each building on the last. That sequencing respects your time while still giving you the full evidentiary trail if you want it.

   Everything on this page

   CONTENTS What This Report Covers 01 The Bottom Line Business Model, Growth and Revenue Durability Frame the Value Agenda 02 The Landscape Different Revenue Models Command Different Valuation Frames 03 Valuation & Situations The Premium End Remains Well Separated from the Discount End 04 Precedent Transactions Precedent Transactions Show Conviction Across Several Education Models 05 Strategic Implications Retention, Workflow Depth and Cost-to-Serve Define the Operating Agenda 06 Appendix Comparables Detail, Methodology, Sources and Assumptions Education Technology Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 2

3. 03
   01 · THE BOTTOM LINE

   Education Technology Software Trades as Three Groups, with Learning Management Software at the Top

   This page summarizes the sector's core finding: the eight approved companies trade in three distinct valuation groups led by learning management software.

   We value this sector primarily on EV/EBITDA against CY2027E consensus, because seven of the eight approved companies carry an eligible estimate on that basis and most of the set is already profitable. Practitioners in this industry also watch EV/Revenue, and we use it here as a cross-check rather than the lead metric. The headline finding is that the sector doesn't price as one group — it prices as three, with learning management software commanding the top of the range. That distinction is what the rest of this report is built to explain.

   Everything on this page

   01 · THE BOTTOM LINE Education Technology Software Spans Learning Software, Workforce Training and Adjacent Models The full story on one page · figures on EV / EBITDA (CY2027E), market data as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Primary valuation basis: EV / EBITDA on CY2027E consensus (6 of 8 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). Practitioners also quote EV / Revenue in this industry; this set is profitable (median forward EBITDA margin 18%, 6 of 8 names with a meaningful EBITDA), so EV / EBITDA leads and EV / Revenue is the cross-check. Qualitative characterisations are NeuraCap views. Education Technology Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 3 1 Business Mix Changes the Valuation Conversation Workforce upskilling and training delivery represents 50% of the set, alongside learning management and academic administration software and adjacent models. Contract renewal behaviour, learner acquisition and delivery intensity differ across these groups. 2 The Premium and Discount Ends Require Different Value Plans Across the 6 names with a forward estimate, the premium end carries 16.7x and the discount end carries 4.2x. The forward lens already credits forecast growth, so durability remains central to defending the upper range. 3 Faster Growth Sits with the Higher Multiple Across the 6 names with a forward estimate, the faster-growing group carries 10.8x versus 6.4x for the slower-growing group. Margin profiles vary within both groups, keeping retention and cost-to-serve in the company-level debate. 4 Transactions Extend Across Several Models Precedent transaction revenue multiples range from 0.9x to 18.5x. That spread is consistent with buyers distinguishing revenue quality, embedded workflow and the strategic fit of courseware, credentials and institutional software. 9.9x Sector median EV/EBITDA CY2027E consensus · 6 rated of 8 companies 16.7x Premium end EV/EBITDA vs 4.2x at the discount end top quartile (n=2) against bottom quartile (n=2) on EV/EBITDA — the spread the report explains 14 Transactions with disclosed terms 48 recorded in this tier · 3 told as case studies, the full list in the appendix

4. 04
   SECTION 02

   02

   This divider introduces the section on how the sector's three groups earn their renewals differently.

   Institutional software, workforce training and adjacent services sell on different economics, and each earns its renewal in its own way. The next few pages map the eight approved companies into these three groups so you can see exactly where any given business sits.

   Everything on this page

   SECTION 02 02 THE LANDSCAPE Different Revenue Models Command Different Valuation Frames Workflow position, renewal behaviour and delivery intensity distinguish the sector's principal groups. 02 of 06 Education Technology Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 4

5. 05
   02 · MARKET MAP

   Half the Names Sell Skills; The Higher Prices Sit with Learning Management Software

   This page groups the eight approved companies by business segment and shows the median EV/EBITDA for each group.

   We've grouped all eight approved companies by what they actually sell, not by a generic sector tag, and taken the median CY2027E EV/EBITDA for each group. Half of this set sells skills-focused training, while the higher prices concentrate with the learning management and institutional names. That split is early evidence that this sector is priced on business model, not on the sector label alone — which is exactly why segment matters more than ticker when you're benchmarking a target.

   Everything on this page

   02 · MARKET MAP Sector Value Spans Three Distinct Education Technology Models 8 approved companies grouped by business segment · median EV / EBITDA (CY2027E) per group · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Segment grouping follows the platform's classification; group medians on rated names only. "Why it matters" lines are NeuraCap views. Education Technology Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 5 WORKFORCE UPSKILLING AND TRAINING DELIVERY 4 cos median 5.4x Grand Canyon (LOPE) Youdao (DAO) Chegg (CHGG) Coursera (COUR) Scale is broad, while subscriber retention, acquisition efficiency and delivery economics shape the quality debate. LEARNING MANAGEMENT AND ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATION SOFTWARE 2 cos median 16.7x Duolingo (DUOL) Nerdy (NRDY) Embedded learning workflows and institutional renewal behaviour support a distinct valuation frame. ADJACENT MODELS 2 cos median 8.6x Huron Consulting (HURN) John Wiley & Sons (WLY) Advisory, implementation and courseware bring different revenue visibility and cost structures into the set.

6. 06
   02 · LANDSCAPE

   Three Groups, Three Different Ways of Earning the Renewal

   This page describes what each of the three segments does and why its renewal economics differ.

   Each of these three groups earns its renewal differently — institutional contracts, individual skills subscriptions, and adjacent advisory or courseware work all carry different switching costs. We lay out what each group does and why that shapes the price the market assigns it. The full company-level detail behind these medians sits in the appendix, so you can trace any group median back to the names that built it. Understanding which economics a business runs on tells you which group's multiple is the fair comparison.

   Everything on this page

   02 · LANDSCAPE Workflow Position and Delivery Mix Separate the Sector's Business Models Segment view of the approved universe · EV / EBITDA (CY2027E) medians on rated names · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. "What they do / why it matters" is a NeuraCap view. Full company-level detail in the appendix and companion tables. Education Technology Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 6 Segment n Share of universe Median EV/EBITDA Names to know What they do — and why it matters Workforce upskilling and training delivery 4 50% 5.4x Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (LOPE) · Youdao, Inc. (DAO) · +2 more Scale meets varied economics. This group represents 50% of the set and carries 5.4x across the names with a forward estimate. Consumer churn, institutional distribution and cost-to-serve can produce materially different revenue quality within the same label. Learning management and academic administration software 2 25% 16.7x Duolingo, Inc. (DUOL) · Nerdy, Inc. (NRDY) Workflow depth supports distinction. Learning management systems and academic administration tools can become embedded in institutional processes. Renewal history, student information system integration and faculty adoption help frame durability. Adjacent models 2 25% 8.6x Huron Consulting Group Inc. (HURN) · John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (WLY) Different models need context. The group carries 8.6x across the names with a forward estimate. Advisory, systems implementation and inclusive-access courseware require separate assessment of contract visibility, content rights and delivery intensity.

7. 07
   SECTION 03

   03

   This divider introduces the section on public market valuation and what separates the top and bottom of the range.

   Seven of the eight approved names carry a CY2027E EBITDA estimate, and the range between them is wide. The next few pages show exactly where the sector clears and what separates the top of that range from the bottom.

   Everything on this page

   SECTION 03 03 VALUATION & SITUATIONS The Premium End Remains Well Separated from the Discount End A forward multiple already credits forecast growth, making durable performance central to the valuation debate. 03 of 06 Education Technology Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 7

8. 08
   03 · PUBLIC MARKET VALUATION

   The Sector Clears at 9.3x EV/EBITDA — the Range Around That Median Is the Story

   This page ranks the seven rated companies on CY2027E EV/EBITDA and marks the sector median at 9.3x.

   The sector clears at a median of 9.3x EV/EBITDA on CY2027E consensus, but the median alone understates the story — the tier zones on this page are cut at the rated set's own quartiles, so you can see how far the top and bottom sit from the middle. EV/EBITDA leads here because this set is largely profitable; we hold EV/Revenue in reserve as the cross-check. Where any one name sits inside these tiers is the fastest read on how the market is pricing its business model.

   Everything on this page

   03 · PUBLIC MARKET VALUATION Premium Names Hold a Clear Lead over the Discount End EV / EBITDA (CY2027E) · all 6 rated companies, sorted descending · sector median 9.9x · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Primary valuation basis: EV / EBITDA on CY2027E consensus (6 of 8 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). Practitioners also quote EV / Revenue in this industry; this set is profitable (median forward EBITDA margin 18%, 6 of 8 names with a meaningful EBITDA), so EV / EBITDA leads and EV / Revenue is the cross-check. Tier zones are NeuraCap groupings cut at the rated set's quartiles; every multiple quoted on this page is a median on the same EV / EBITDA (CY2027E) basis. Panel commentary is a NeuraCap view. Education Technology Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 8 PREMIUM · median 16.7x CORE · median 9.9x DISCOUNT · median 4.2x Sector median 9.9x WHAT SEPARATES THE TWO ENDS The range remains wide. Across the 6 names with a forward estimate, the premium end carries 16.7x versus 4.2x at the discount end. Forward pricing tests durability. The multiple already credits forecast growth. Holding the upper range therefore depends on the durability of retention, acquisition efficiency and learner economics. Model quality needs proof. Institutional renewal behaviour, organic learner acquisition and embedded workflow provide different ways to support revenue quality. The relevant proof varies by business model.

9. 09
   03 · VALUATION DRIVERS

   The Faster Growers Hold the Higher 2027 Multiple

   This page splits the rated names into faster- and slower-growth cohorts and into higher- and lower-margin cohorts, and compares median EV/EBITDA for each.

   The faster-growing names hold a median of 10.0x on CY2027E EV/EBITDA, against 6.5x for the slower-growing names. We read this as an association the market is pricing, not a proven cause — but it's a consistent one across this cohort. The margin split tells a similar story: higher-margin names also command a richer multiple. If you're building the case for a valuation uplift, growth and margin are the two levers this data says the market is actually rewarding.

   Everything on this page

   03 · VALUATION DRIVERS Faster-Growing Names Sit at Higher Forward Multiples in This Set Median EV / EBITDA (CY2027E) by revenue-growth cohort and by EBITDA-margin cohort (each split at its covered median) · rated names with estimates · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Cohort medians on rated names with the required estimates (faster n=3; slower n=3; higher-margin n=3; lower-margin n=3). Driver readings are NeuraCap views on the supplied data — association, not causation. Education Technology Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 9 EV/EBITDA, median per cohort · growth split at 5% · EBITDA-margin split at 25% The Growth Split Separates the Valuation Groups Across the 6 names with a forward estimate, the 3 above the 5% growth split carry 10.8x, while the other 3 carry 6.4x. This is an observed association within the set. Revenue Durability Remains the Operating Test Institutional renewal rates, contract terms and seat penetration test whether growth can persist. Consumer models require equal attention to churn, free-to-paid conversion and acquisition payback. Cost-to-Serve Shapes the Quality of Earnings Delivery-heavy models need sound learner economics beneath EBITDA. Content amortisation, support intensity and paid acquisition can change how comparable earnings are assessed.

10. 10
    03 · SITUATION MAP

    Where Price and Profit Line up, and Where They Part Company

    This page maps the rated names on a grid of valuation versus the sector median (9.3x) and margin versus the covered median (22%).

    We've cut this grid on two medians — 9.3x EV/EBITDA on one axis and 22% EBITDA margin on the other — so you can see which names carry both a premium multiple and a premium margin, and which carry one without the other. This is a map of situations, not a set of recommendations: it tells you where a name sits, not what to do about it. For an owner or acquirer, the quadrant a target sits in is the first question worth asking before diligence begins.

    Everything on this page

    03 · SITUATION MAP Higher Multiples Sit with More than One Margin Profile Cut on EV / EBITDA vs the sector median (9.9x) (rows) and EBITDA margin vs the covered median (25%) (columns) · observations, not recommendations Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Situation boundaries are the cohort's own medians (Directional, NeuraCap view). This page characterises situations; it does not recommend buying or selling any security. Education Technology Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 10 Higher Multiple, Higher Margin Above-median multiple · above-median EBITDA margin 1 names Duolingo, Inc. (DUOL) Among the 6 names with a forward estimate, Duolingo, Inc. (DUOL) sits above the middle of both the multiple and margin ranges. The position keeps attention on sustaining learner growth and acquisition efficiency. Higher Multiple, Lower Margin Above-median multiple · below-median EBITDA margin 2 names Huron Consulting Group Inc. (HURN) · Nerdy, Inc. (NRDY) Among the 6 names with a forward estimate, Huron Consulting Group Inc. (HURN) and Nerdy, Inc. (NRDY) sit above the middle of the multiple range and below the middle of the margin range. Their agenda centres on converting market standing into more durable earnings. Lower Multiple, Higher Margin Below-median multiple · above-median EBITDA margin 2 names Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (LOPE) · John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (WLY) Among the 6 names with a forward estimate, Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (LOPE) and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (WLY) sit below the middle of the multiple range and above the middle of the margin range. Their position puts growth quality, product mix and capital allocation in focus. Lower Multiple, Lower Margin Below-median multiple · below-median EBITDA margin 1 names Chegg, Inc. (CHGG) Among the 6 names with a forward estimate, Chegg, Inc. (CHGG) sits below the middle of both ranges. The operating focus is stabilising revenue quality while aligning the cost base with the current demand profile.

11. 11
    03 · THE AGENDA

    Three Characteristics That Travel with the Top of This Range for a Learning Business

    This page sets out three characteristics that NeuraCap associates with names at the top of the valuation range.

    Drawing on the cohort data shown earlier, we've framed three characteristics that travel with the top of this range — framed deliberately as questions for an owner or acquirer to resolve, not as a checklist. These are directional observations grounded in the data, not investment advice. If your business — or a target you're evaluating — can answer these questions well, that's a reasonable signal it belongs nearer the top of this range than the bottom.

    Everything on this page

    03 · THE AGENDA Set the Growth Plan Around Revenue Quality and Workflow Position NeuraCap view · framed as the questions an owner or acquirer should resolve · observations, not recommendations Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. All content on this page is Directional — NeuraCap advisory judgment grounded in the cohort data shown earlier. It does not constitute investment advice. Education Technology Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 11 Deepen the Institutional Workflow Build product links into learning management, student information and administrative processes. Prioritise features that support seat penetration, renewal behaviour and faculty adoption. What changes the answer: Choose this path when customers treat the product as part of a recurring institutional workflow. Improve Learner Acquisition Economics Shift the mix toward organic acquisition, stronger free-to-paid conversion and clearer channel economics. Align product investment with the learner groups showing durable engagement. What changes the answer: Choose this path when paid acquisition or subscriber churn constrains profitable growth. Strengthen Content Ownership and Outcomes Focus investment on owned courseware, assessment item banks and verified learner outcomes. Clean licensing chains and defensible efficacy can distinguish content from lower-cost substitutes. What changes the answer: Choose this path when content differentiation and rights ownership shape customer retention. Use Build-Versus-Buy Selectively Compare internal investment with acquisitions that add distribution, credentials or embedded workflow. Keep integration demands and contract assignability central to the decision. What changes the answer: Choose this path when an external asset can add capabilities or customer access faster than internal development.

12. 12
    SECTION 04

    04

    This divider introduces the section on precedent transactions and what buyers have been paying for.

    Nine transactions in this record run from a completed marketplace combination to sponsor moves on institution-facing software. The next section walks through what buyers have actually agreed to pay for, using the deals with disclosed terms as case studies.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 04 04 PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS Precedent Transactions Show Conviction Across Several Education Models Strategic and financial buyers have backed institutional software, course delivery and credentials. 04 of 06 Education Technology Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 12

13. 13
    04 · DEAL CASE STUDIES

    What Buyers Have Been Agreeing to Pay for in Learning Assets

    This page walks through three precedent transactions with disclosed terms as case studies of what buyers have paid for.

    We've picked three of the fourteen disclosed-terms transactions to walk through in detail, with multiples measured on LTM financials at announcement — a different basis from the CY2027E public multiples used elsewhere in this report, so we don't draw a spread between them. Coursera's agreed acquisition of Udemy at $728M, recorded at 10.1x EBITDA, is one of the clearest examples of what an institution-facing or installed-base asset has commanded. The complete list of transactions sits in the appendix if you want to trace every deal behind this pattern. What buyers have paid for here is a useful anchor for negotiating your own position, whichever side of a deal you're on.

    Everything on this page

    04 · DEAL CASE STUDIES Buyers Have Backed Platforms, Course Delivery and Credentials 3 of 14 transactions with disclosed terms, told as case studies · multiples on LTM financials at announcement where disclosed · the complete list is in the appendix · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. 60 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; divestiture roles reassigned; duplicate filings collapsed); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 34 recorded transactions with neither a disclosed value nor a multiple are omitted from the precedent list and the case studies (kept in the companion workbook). Deal multiples are LTM at announcement (Definitive, from filings); they are not directly comparable to the CY2027E public basis and no spread is claimed. "Why the deal happened" is a NeuraCap read of the recorded evidence. Education Technology Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 13 Jun-2024 $5.6B PowerSchool Holdings, Inc PowerSchool Holdings, Inc completed the transaction involving June 2024. EV / LTM revenue 7.8x EV / LTM EBITDA n/a WHY THE DEAL HAPPENED The transaction suggests buyer conviction around a sizeable education technology asset. HOW THE TARGET WAS VALUED The disclosed value was $5.6B, with valuation at 7.8x revenue. It benchmarks the upper portion of the disclosed revenue-multiple range shown. Jun-2024 $5.0B Bain Capital Bain Capital backed PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. in a sizeable education software transaction. EV / LTM revenue 6.8x EV / LTM EBITDA n/a WHY THE DEAL HAPPENED The transaction suggests financial-buyer interest in scaled, institution-facing software. Embedded workflows and recurring customer relationships provide a clear strategic fit for long-term ownership. HOW THE TARGET WAS VALUED The disclosed value was $5.0B, with valuation at 6.8x revenue. It provides a benchmark for scaled institutional education software. Dec-2025 $728M Coursera, Inc. Coursera, Inc. (COUR) completed its transaction for Udemy, Inc. EV / LTM revenue 0.9x EV / LTM EBITDA 10.1x WHY THE DEAL HAPPENED The combination suggests a scale play across course delivery and enterprise learning. Broader content, learner reach and customer relationships provide the strategic fit. HOW THE TARGET WAS VALUED The disclosed value was $728M, with valuation at 0.9x revenue and 10.1x EBITDA. The two measures show how revenue scale and earnings can frame the same transaction differently.

14. 14
    SECTION 05

    05

    This divider introduces the section on what could earn a higher multiple going forward.

    Revenue quality, renewal behaviour and acquisition economics are the three levers this report puts in view for the next twelve months. The following pages turn the valuation and transaction evidence into practical questions for owners, boards and acquirers.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 05 05 STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Retention, Workflow Depth and Cost-to-Serve Define the Operating Agenda Owners can strengthen their standing through sharper revenue quality, product focus and capital allocation. 05 of 06 Education Technology Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 14

15. 15
    05 · STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

    What This Set Is Paying for, and What That Means for Your Mix

    This page turns the valuation evidence into questions for owners, boards and acquirers to resolve over the next year.

    Based on what this data shows about how the market prices this sector, we've framed the practical questions worth resolving over the next twelve months — for owners, for boards, and for acquirers. These are directional views grounded in the analysis in this report, not recommendations to buy or sell any security. Where your business sits on revenue mix, growth and margin is what will move you between the tiers we've shown.

    Everything on this page

    05 · STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Value Plans Centre on Retention, Workflow Depth and Cost-to-Serve NeuraCap view · the questions this data puts on the table for the next twelve months Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. This page is Directional — NeuraCap views drawn from the analysis in this report. Observations, not recommendations. Education Technology Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 15 FOR OWNERS Choose the Value Path That Fits the Model Institutional software, consumer learning and delivery-heavy services require different operating priorities. Focus capital on the revenue-quality and workflow advantages that customers already recognise. FOR MANAGEMENT TEAMS Connect Growth with Durable Unit Economics Test growth against renewal behaviour, acquisition payback, learner engagement and support intensity. The goal is a model that can sustain growth without weakening cost-to-serve. FOR BOARDS Set Capital Allocation by Strategic Fit Compare product investment, partnerships and acquisitions against the same operating tests. Give priority to moves that deepen workflow position, improve revenue mix or add defensible content rights.

16. 16
    SECTION 06

    06

    06.

    Section 06 of 06 — The Full Universe, Methodology and Sources. Comparables detail behind every figure in the body, the valuation basis, and where each underlying disclosure lives. Use this divider to reset the room before the section's pages; the progress dots show where the argument stands. 16

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 06 06 APPENDIX The Full Universe, Methodology and Sources Comparables detail behind every figure in the body, the valuation basis, and where each underlying disclosure lives. 06 of 06 Education Technology Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 16

17. 17
    06 · PUBLIC COMPARABLES (1 OF 1)

    Public Comparables on EV / EBITDA (CY2027E), Grouped by Valuation Tier

    Public Comparables on EV / EBITDA (CY2027E), Grouped by Valuation Tier.

    Public Comparables on EV / EBITDA (CY2027E), Grouped by Valuation Tier Teal shading marks a EV/EBITDA above the sector median (9.3x); amber marks below · 7 rated companies; 1 not rated (no eligible EV/EBITDA) · tickers link to the underlying source · as of 2026-09-25 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-25; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. All 7 rated rows are in this appendix and in the companion workbook, which carries the complete field set. Names without an eligible multiple are listed in the companion workbook. 17

    Everything on this page

    06 · PUBLIC COMPARABLES (1 OF 1) Public Comparables on EV / EBITDA (CY2027E), Grouped by Valuation Tier Teal shading marks a EV/EBITDA above the sector median (9.9x); amber marks below · 6 rated companies; 2 not rated (no eligible EV/EBITDA) · tickers link to the underlying source · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. All 6 rated rows are in this appendix and in the companion workbook, which carries the complete field set. Names without an eligible multiple are listed in the companion workbook. Education Technology Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 17 Company Ticker Segment EV EV/EBITDA (CY2027E) Rev growth EBITDA margin Rule of 40 PREMIUM — ≥12.9x · median 16.7x · 2 companies Nerdy, Inc. NRDY Learning management and academic administration software $92M 19.9x 3% 3% 6 Duolingo, Inc. DUOL Learning management and academic administration software $5.1B 13.6x 13% 27% 41 CORE — 7.0x–12.9x · median 9.9x · 2 companies Huron Consulting Group Inc. HURN Adjacent: higher-education advisory and systems… $3.4B 10.8x 9% 16% 25 Grand Canyon Education, Inc. LOPE Workforce upskilling and training delivery $3.8B 8.9x 6% 34% 40 DISCOUNT — <7.0x · median 4.2x · 2 companies John Wiley & Sons, Inc. WLY Digital courseware and inclusive-access content $3.1B 6.4x 5% 27% 32 Chegg, Inc. CHGG Workforce upskilling and training delivery $62M 1.9x -26% 22% -4

18. 18
    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (1 OF 2)

    All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First

    This page lists precedent transactions with disclosed terms, sorted newest first, continued across two pages.

    This is the first part of the list of fourteen transactions with disclosed terms out of the forty-eight recorded in this tier, sorted from most recent. Multiples here are measured on LTM financials at the time of announcement, a different basis from the CY2027E public multiples used elsewhere in this report. Each deal value traces back to the filing it was taken from, so any transaction can be verified independently. This is the primary evidence behind the deal patterns discussed earlier in the report.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (1 OF 2) All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First 14 transactions with disclosed terms in this tier (48 recorded) · multiples on LTM financials at announcement where disclosed · deal values link to the underlying filing · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. 60 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; divestiture roles reassigned; duplicate filings collapsed); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 34 recorded transactions with neither a disclosed value nor a multiple are omitted from the precedent list and the case studies (kept in the companion workbook). Deal multiples are LTM at announcement (Definitive, from filings); they are not directly comparable to the CY2027E public basis and no spread is claimed. Education Technology Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 18 Date Transaction EV EV/LTM Rev EV/LTM EBITDA Why it matters Dec-2025 Coursera, Inc. → Udemy, Inc. $728M 0.9x 10.1x Coursera, Inc. (COUR) and Udemy, Inc. brought together two course-delivery platforms. The transaction suggests value in broader learner and enterprise reach. Dec-2024 GASC APF, L.P. → Learning Technologies Group plc. n/a 2.3x n/a GASC APF, L.P. agreed to acquire Learning Technologies Group plc. at 2.3x revenue. The transaction points to continued buyer interest in corporate learning and training delivery. Jul-2024 Entain Plc → Instructure Holdings, Inc. n/a 4.0x 16.7x Entain Plc agreed to acquire Instructure Holdings, Inc. at 4.0x revenue. The transaction suggests buyers can place value on embedded institutional workflows and installed relationships. Jun-2024 PowerSchool Holdings, Inc → June 2024 $5.6B 7.8x n/a PowerSchool Holdings, Inc completed the transaction involving June 2024. The disclosed terms place the transaction among the larger entries shown. Jun-2024 Bain Capital → PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. $5.0B 6.8x n/a Bain Capital agreed to acquire PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. The transaction suggests financial-buyer interest in scaled education software with institution-facing relationships. Jan-2022 Pearson → Credly n/a 18.5x n/a Pearson agreed to acquire Credly at 18.5x revenue. The price points to a distinct valuation frame for verified credentials and their strategic fit with education and workforce offerings. Mar-2021 Vista Equity Partners Management, LLC → Pluralsight, Inc. n/a 9.8x n/a Vista Equity Partners Management, LLC agreed to acquire Pluralsight, Inc. at 9.8x revenue. The transaction suggests buyer interest in subscription-based technology skills and enterprise learning. Jan-2021 TPG Pace Tech Opportunities Corp. → Live Learning Technologies LLC $1M n/a n/a TPG Pace Tech Opportunities Corp. agreed a $1M transaction for Live Learning Technologies LLC. The transaction linked live learning delivery with a public-market vehicle. Feb-2020 Thoma Bravo, L.P. → Instructure, Inc. n/a 6.5x n/a Thoma Bravo, L.P. agreed to acquire Instructure, Inc. at 6.5x revenue. The transaction suggests value in an embedded learning management system and its institutional relationships.

19. 19
    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (2 OF 2)

    All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First

    This page continues the list of precedent transactions with disclosed terms, sorted newest first.

    This second page completes the list of fourteen disclosed-terms transactions out of the forty-eight recorded in this tier. The same LTM-at-announcement basis applies throughout, and it remains distinct from the CY2027E public multiples used elsewhere in this report. Together, these two pages give the complete transaction record behind the case studies shown earlier. Use this list to locate any comparable transaction relevant to a target or process you're considering.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (2 OF 2) All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First 14 transactions with disclosed terms in this tier (48 recorded) · multiples on LTM financials at announcement where disclosed · deal values link to the underlying filing · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. 60 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; divestiture roles reassigned; duplicate filings collapsed); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 34 recorded transactions with neither a disclosed value nor a multiple are omitted from the precedent list and the case studies (kept in the companion workbook). Deal multiples are LTM at announcement (Definitive, from filings); they are not directly comparable to the CY2027E public basis and no spread is claimed. Education Technology Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 19 Date Transaction EV EV/LTM Rev EV/LTM EBITDA Why it matters Jan-2020 Vista → Pluralsight n/a 8.5x n/a Jul-2011 Providence Equity Partners LLC → Blackboard Inc. n/a 3.7x n/a Mar-2010 Berkshire Partners, Advent International Corporation and Bain Capital Partners → Skillsoft Public Limited Company n/a 3.6x n/a n/a Cambium Learning → Rosetta Stone Inc. n/a 3.9x n/a Value shown as recorded in the filing; status defaulted announced. n/a Onex Corporation → PowerSchool Group LLC n/a 8.5x 22.9x Value shown as recorded in the filing; status defaulted announced.

20. 20
    06 · REPORTED FIGURES AND THEIR FILINGS

    Every Reported Figure, Linked to the Filing It Was Taken From

    This page shows every reported figure used in this report alongside the filing it was sourced from, for all eight companies.

    All eight approved companies carry at least one figure traced to a filing in this table, each shown for its latest reported year. Consensus estimates used elsewhere in the report have no equivalent filing and are not listed here, since they don't originate in a single company disclosure. A blank cell simply means no filing-sourced value was available for that item. This table is the primary-source backbone for every reported figure quoted earlier in the report.

    Everything on this page

    06 · METHODOLOGY Sources, Assumptions and Data Quality How this report was built, what was excluded, and where every underlying disclosure lives · as of 2026-09-28 Every figure in this report links to the record it was taken from. Where a figure has no link, the appendix names its source and the basis on which it was read. Education Technology Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice 20 VALUATION BASIS Primary valuation basis: EV / EBITDA on CY2027E consensus (6 of 8 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). Practitioners also quote EV / Revenue in this industry; this set is profitable (median forward EBITDA margin 18%, 6 of 8 names with a meaningful EBITDA), so EV / EBITDA leads and EV / Revenue is the cross-check. EV / EBITDA on CY2027E is the lead convention: it is the sector-appropriate prior for Education Technology Software and it clears the coverage gate with 7 of 8 companies (88%). EV / Revenue, P / E are carried as a cross-check. The set earns: 7 of the 7 companies with a reported forward EBITDA carry a meaningful one, so the profit multiple leads and a revenue multiple would understate what the market is pricing. DATA QUALITY & EXCLUSIONS 11 records were excluded or quarantined by the platform's validation gates (unit errors, implausible ratios, ineligible securities and classification failures); the full ledger ships in the companion tables and never feeds a statistic in this report. DEFINITIVE VS DIRECTIONAL Definitive content is disclosed or consensus data passed through stated arithmetic. Directional content — tier boundaries, situation cuts, "why it matters" commentary, the agenda pages — is NeuraCap analyst judgment and is labeled as such where it appears. WHAT THIS REPORT IS NOT This report characterises a sector. It does not recommend buying, selling or holding any security, and no statement in it should be read as investment advice or a price target. WHERE THE DATA LIVES 362 registered source documents stand behind the figures in this report. Metric hyperlinks throughout the deck open the specific filing or data record; by publisher: sec.gov (361) · home.treasury.gov (1). The companion workbook beside this deck carries the complete source index.

21. 21
    06 · METHODOLOGY

    Sources, Assumptions and Data Quality

    Sources, Assumptions and Data Quality.

    Sources, Assumptions and Data Quality How this report was built, what was excluded, and where every underlying disclosure lives · as of 2026-09-25 Every figure in this report links to the record it was taken from. Where a figure has no link, the appendix names its source and the basis on which it was read. 21

    Everything on this page

    Higher Forward Multiples Sit with Faster Growth and Varied Margin Profiles. NeuraCap AI — Education Technology Software Coverage September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential Education Technology Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 21

22. 22

    Across These Eight Names, the Higher Prices Sit with Contracted Institutional Revenue.

    This closing page restates the report's core finding and points to the companion tables for full detail.

    Across these eight names, the higher prices sit with contracted institutional revenue — that's the single finding this report set out to establish. The companion tables alongside this deck carry the full universe, the exclusion ledger and the complete source index for any figure you want to trace further. We'd welcome the chance to walk through how this pricing pattern applies to your own position or a target you're evaluating.

More coverage in Information Technology

• Bi-Weekly Update · Sep 25, 2026Education Technology Software Bi-Weekly Industry Events & M&A Update — September 11–25, 2026
• Sector Report · Sep 25, 2026Human Capital Management Software Sector Outlook — September 2026
• Bi-Weekly Update · Sep 25, 2026Insurance Software Bi-Weekly Industry Events & M&A Update — September 11–25, 2026
• Bi-Weekly Update · Sep 25, 2026Human Capital Management Software Bi-Weekly Industry Events & M&A Update — September 11–25, 2026