NEURACAP
Sector ReportSep 28, 2026 · 21 pages · Free to read

Health Care Software Sector Outlook — September 2026

NeuraCap's Health Care Software sector outlook: who plays, how the market prices them, what has transacted, and what it means for owners, operators and acquirers.

Download PDFDownload PowerPoint

Key figures

10.1x
Sector median EV/EBITDA
19.0x
Premium end EV/EBITDA vs 5.2x at the discount end
22
Transactions with disclosed terms

Read the report

C:\Users\dawoo\OneDrive\Desktop\Deployments\neuracap_sector_reports_fable\Code\NeuraCap_Sector_Report_Pipeline_v2.1.0\ncsr\deck_kit\assets\logo_light_full.png

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY › SOFTWARE AND SERVICES › HEALTH CARE SOFTWARE

Health Care Software: Value Splits by Business Model

The report shows where public pricing separates and which operating qualities matter for strategic positioning.

September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential

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

Health Care Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice

1

1 / 21

Executive summary

Health Care Software is not priced as one uniform sector. The peer set spans validated workflow applications, healthcare data, technology-enabled services, connected medical devices and adjacent models, with wide differences in public valuation. The practical agenda is to deepen workflow ownership, improve recurring-revenue quality, strengthen implementation economics and choose build-versus-buy priorities that reinforce durable customer value.

Key findings

  • The Premium End Holds a Wide Valuation Lead Over the Discount End
  • Workflow and Data Models Sit Higher
  • Growth Alone Does Not Sort the Range
  • Higher Margins Sit Alongside Higher Valuations

What each page shows

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

  1. 01

    INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY › SOFTWARE AND SERVICES › HEALTH CARE SOFTWARE

    INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY › SOFTWARE AND SERVICES › HEALTH CARE SOFTWARE.

    Cover — Health Care Software sector insights, September 2026. Prepared by NeuraCap AI; market data as of 2026-09-28; primary valuation basis EV / EBITDA (CY2027E). The framing line carries the deck's finding with the figures stripped. 1

    Everything on this page

    INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY › SOFTWARE AND SERVICES › HEALTH CARE SOFTWARE Health Care Software: Value Splits by Business Model The report shows where public pricing separates and which operating qualities matter for strategic positioning. September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential Market data as of 2026-09-28 · primary valuation basis EV / EBITDA (CY2027E) Health Care Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 1

  2. 02
    CONTENTS

    What This Report Covers

    What This Report Covers.

    Contents — the report runs 5 numbered sections plus the appendix: the bottom line, the landscape, valuation & situations, precedent transactions, strategic implications. The Bottom Line comes first by design: a reader who stops after section 01 still leaves with the whole story. 2

    Everything on this page

    CONTENTS What This Report Covers 01 The Bottom Line Health Care Software Rewards Clear Business-Model Quality 02 The Landscape Different Health Care Software Models Carry Different Value Profiles 03 Valuation & Situations The Premium End Holds Despite a Forward Earnings Lens 04 Precedent Transactions Precedent Transactions Show Buyers Paying for Distinct Strategic Assets 05 Strategic Implications Strengthen the Operating Evidence Behind the Valuation Story 06 Appendix Comparables Detail, Methodology, Sources and Assumptions Health Care Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 2

  3. 03
    01 · THE BOTTOM LINE

    Health Care Software Spans Workflow, Data, Services and Adjacent Models with Uneven Pricing

    Health Care Software Spans Workflow, Data, Services and Adjacent Models with Uneven Pricing.

    Health Care Software Spans Workflow, Data, Services and Adjacent Models with Uneven Pricing 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 (7 of 10 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 21%, 7 of 10 names with a meaningful EBITDA), so EV / EBITDA leads and EV / Revenue is the cross-check. Qualitative characterisations are NeuraCap views. 3

    Everything on this page

    01 · THE BOTTOM LINE Health Care Software Spans Workflow, Data, Services and Adjacent Models with Uneven Pricing 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 (7 of 10 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 21%, 7 of 10 names with a meaningful EBITDA), so EV / EBITDA leads and EV / Revenue is the cross-check. Qualitative characterisations are NeuraCap views. Health Care Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 3 1 The Premium End Holds a Wide Valuation Lead over the Discount End The premium end sits at 19.0x, while the discount end sits at 5.2x. The forward earnings lens already credits forecast performance, so the remaining separation points to different views of durability. 2 Workflow and Data Models Sit Higher The one rated laboratory and clinical workflow application sits at 20.7x, with healthcare data and information services at 15.0x. Validated workflow depth and proprietary data sit alongside the higher public pricing. 3 Growth Alone Does Not Sort the Range Among the seven names with an EV / EBITDA estimate, the four above the 5% growth split sit at 7.8x, versus 12.7x for the three at or below it. Revenue quality, retention and earnings durability remain important parts of the market view. 4 Higher Margins Sit Alongside Higher Valuations Three of the seven names with an EV / EBITDA estimate sit above the middle of the range on both valuation and EBITDA margin, while two sit below both. Efficient implementation, subscription mix and module adoption can sharpen the operating case. 10.1x Sector median EV/EBITDA CY2027E consensus · 7 rated of 10 companies 19.0x Premium end EV/EBITDA vs 5.2x at the discount end top quartile (n=2) against bottom quartile (n=2) on EV/EBITDA — the spread the report explains 22 Transactions with disclosed terms 53 recorded in this tier · 3 told as case studies, the full list in the appendix

  4. 04
    SECTION 02

    02

    02.

    Section 02 of 06 — Different Health Care Software Models Carry Different Value Profiles. Workflow ownership, data assets and delivery intensity shape how the peer set is viewed. Use this divider to reset the room before the section's pages; the progress dots show where the argument stands. 4

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 02 02 THE LANDSCAPE Different Health Care Software Models Carry Different Value Profiles Workflow ownership, data assets and delivery intensity shape how the peer set is viewed. 02 of 06 Health Care Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 4

  5. 05
    02 · MARKET MAP

    Valuation Varies Across Five Health Care Software Models

    Valuation Varies Across Five Health Care Software Models.

    Valuation Varies Across Five Health Care Software Models 10 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. 5

    Everything on this page

    02 · MARKET MAP Valuation Varies Across Five Health Care Software Models 10 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. Health Care Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 5 ADJACENT: CONNECTED MEDICAL DEVICES 2 cos no rated names BFLY CBLL Connected medical devices extend software into clinical use, with regulatory exposure and adoption shaping the model. HEALTHCARE DATA AND INFORMATION SERVICES 2 cos median 15.0x CERT HCAT Data assets and embedded information workflows can support durable customer relevance and account expansion. ADJACENT: HEALTH TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING AND MANAGED SERVICES 2 cos median 7.8x CTSH EXLS Consulting and managed services add customer access, but delivery intensity can limit operating leverage. LABORATORY AND CLINICAL WORKFLOW APPLICATIONS 2 cos 20.7x · 1 rated VEEV SDGR Validated laboratory and clinical workflows can deepen integration, retention and module adoption. ADJACENT MODELS 2 cos median 7.2x SOLV BTMD Adjacent models broaden the sector map while carrying business economics that differ from software platforms.

  6. 06
    02 · LANDSCAPE

    Workflow Depth and Delivery Intensity Divide the Sector

    Workflow Depth and Delivery Intensity Divide the Sector.

    Workflow Depth and Delivery Intensity Divide the Sector 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. 6

    Everything on this page

    02 · LANDSCAPE Workflow Depth and Delivery Intensity Divide the Sector 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. Health Care 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 Adjacent: connected medical devices 2 20% — Butterfly Network, Inc. (BFLY) · CeriBell, Inc. (CBLL) Clinical use raises the bar. Butterfly Network, Inc. (BFLY) and CeriBell, Inc. (CBLL) connect software with medical-device functionality, making validation, adoption and clinical integration central to the value case. Healthcare data and information services 2 20% 15.0x Certara, Inc. (CERT) · Health Catalyst, Inc. (HCAT) Data depth carries value. Certara, Inc. (CERT) and Health Catalyst, Inc. (HCAT) sit at 15.0x. Proprietary data, permitted-use rights and embedded analytics frame their strategic relevance. Adjacent: health technology consulting and managed services 2 20% 7.8x Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation (CTSH) · ExlService Holdings, Inc. (EXLS) Delivery mix shapes economics. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation (CTSH) and ExlService Holdings, Inc. (EXLS) combine technology with service delivery. Implementation intensity and professional services mix matter to operating leverage. Laboratory and clinical workflow applications 2 20% 20.7x n=1 Veeva Systems Inc. (VEEV) · Schrödinger, Inc. (SDGR) Validated workflows deepen retention. Veeva Systems Inc. (VEEV) and Schrödinger, Inc. (SDGR) serve laboratory and clinical workflows. The one rated name sits at 20.7x, while validation and regulated content can deepen customer integration. Adjacent models 2 20% 7.2x Solventum Corporation (SOLV) · biote Corp. (BTMD) Mixed models need precision. Solventum Corporation (SOLV) and biote Corp. (BTMD) broaden the set beyond core software. Their strategic cases depend on clearly separating recurring technology value from the surrounding operating model.

  7. 07
    SECTION 03

    03

    03.

    Section 03 of 06 — The Premium End Holds Despite a Forward Earnings Lens. The range remains wide after forecast profitability is already reflected. Use this divider to reset the room before the section's pages; the progress dots show where the argument stands. 7

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 03 03 VALUATION & SITUATIONS The Premium End Holds Despite a Forward Earnings Lens The range remains wide after forecast profitability is already reflected. 03 of 06 Health Care Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 7

  8. 08
    03 · PUBLIC MARKET VALUATION

    The Premium End Retains Its Lead After Forecast Earnings

    The Premium End Retains Its Lead After Forecast Earnings.

    The Premium End Retains Its Lead After Forecast Earnings EV / EBITDA (CY2027E) · all 7 rated companies, sorted descending · sector median 10.1x · 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 (7 of 10 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 21%, 7 of 10 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. 8

    Everything on this page

    03 · PUBLIC MARKET VALUATION The Premium End Retains Its Lead After Forecast Earnings EV / EBITDA (CY2027E) · all 7 rated companies, sorted descending · sector median 10.1x · 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 (7 of 10 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 21%, 7 of 10 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. Health Care Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 8 PREMIUM · median 19.0x CORE · median 10.1x DISCOUNT · median 5.2x Sector median 10.1x WHAT SEPARATES THE TWO ENDS The range remains wide. The premium tier sits at 19.0x versus 5.2x for the discount tier. That spread remains under a forward EV / EBITDA lens. The premium spans distinct models. Veeva Systems Inc. (VEEV) owns laboratory and clinical workflows, while Health Catalyst, Inc. (HCAT) centers on healthcare data and information services. The discount needs sharper proof. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation (CTSH) and biote Corp. (BTMD) sit at the lower end. Revenue mix, retention, delivery efficiency and expansion are the practical areas to test.

  9. 09
    03 · VALUATION DRIVERS

    Profitability Separates the Two Ends: Names Above the 21% Margin Line Carry 11.4x Against 6.0x Below It

    Profitability Separates the Two Ends: Names Above the 21% Margin Line Carry 11.4x Against 6.0x Below It.

    Profitability Separates the Two Ends: Names Above the 21% Margin Line Carry 11.4x Against 6.0x Below It 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=4; slower n=3; higher-margin n=4; lower-margin n=3). Driver readings are NeuraCap views on the supplied data — association, not causation. 9

    Everything on this page

    03 · VALUATION DRIVERS Profitability Separates the Two Ends: Names Above the 21% Margin Line Carry 11.4x Against 6.0x Below It 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=4; slower n=3; higher-margin n=4; lower-margin n=3). Driver readings are NeuraCap views on the supplied data — association, not causation. Health Care Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 9 EV/EBITDA, median per cohort · growth split at 5% · EBITDA-margin split at 21% The Lower-Growth Group Carries the Higher Multiple On the seven names with an EV / EBITDA estimate, the four above 5% growth sit at 7.8x, while the three at or below the split sit at 12.7x. Revenue Quality Remains Part of the Market View Recurring-revenue mix, retention, customer concentration and renewal visibility help distinguish durable growth from project-based expansion. Implementation Economics Deserve Equal Attention Professional services mix, implementation backlog and deployment efficiency shape the path from bookings to profitable scale. Expansion Can Deepen the Customer Position Module adoption, site expansion and interoperability can broaden account value where the product already owns a mission-critical workflow.

  10. 10
    03 · SITUATION MAP

    Margin and Valuation Define Four Different Strategic Positions

    Margin and Valuation Define Four Different Strategic Positions.

    Margin and Valuation Define Four Different Strategic Positions Cut on EV / EBITDA vs the sector median (10.1x) (rows) and EBITDA margin vs the covered median (21%) (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. 10

    Everything on this page

    03 · SITUATION MAP Margin and Valuation Define Four Different Strategic Positions Cut on EV / EBITDA vs the sector median (10.1x) (rows) and EBITDA margin vs the covered median (21%) (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. Health Care Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 10 Priced and Profitable Above-median multiple · above-median EBITDA margin 3 names Veeva Systems Inc. (VEEV) · Solventum Corporation (SOLV) · Certara, Inc. (CERT) Among the seven names with an EV / EBITDA estimate, three sit above the 10.1x sector reference and above the 21% margin reference. Their position combines established profitability with above-middle public pricing. Priced Ahead of Margin Above-median multiple · below-median EBITDA margin 1 names Health Catalyst, Inc. (HCAT) Among the seven names with an EV / EBITDA estimate, Health Catalyst, Inc. (HCAT) sits above the valuation reference and below the margin reference. The position places added weight on revenue quality, data assets and the path to operating leverage. Profitable Below the Range Below-median multiple · above-median EBITDA margin 1 names ExlService Holdings, Inc. (EXLS) Among the seven names with an EV / EBITDA estimate, ExlService Holdings, Inc. (EXLS) sits below the valuation reference and above the margin reference. The strategic question is whether growth quality and business mix can support a higher market view. Operating Case Still Developing Below-median multiple · below-median EBITDA margin 2 names Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation (CTSH) · biote Corp. (BTMD) Among the seven names with an EV / EBITDA estimate, two sit below both references. Improving revenue mix, retention and delivery efficiency would strengthen the operating evidence.

  11. 11
    03 · THE AGENDA

    The Operating Path Chosen Is Associated with Durable Strategic Value

    The Operating Path Chosen Is Associated with Durable Strategic Value.

    The Operating Path Chosen Is Associated with Durable Strategic Value 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. 11

    Everything on this page

    03 · THE AGENDA The Operating Path Chosen Is Associated with Durable Strategic Value 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. Health Care Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 11 Deepen Workflow Ownership Prioritize products that sit inside validated clinical or laboratory workflows and expand through modules, sites and regulated content. What changes the answer: The answer changes when customers treat the product as embedded infrastructure rather than a point solution. Raise Recurring-Revenue Quality Shift mix toward durable subscriptions, account expansion and stronger renewal visibility while reducing dependence on project-based work. What changes the answer: The answer changes when retention and subscription mix support growth without heavier delivery intensity. Improve Implementation Economics Reduce deployment friction, manage professional services mix and convert implementation backlog into scalable customer adoption. What changes the answer: The answer changes when new deployments require less incremental cost and management attention. Build or Acquire Adjacent Capability Compare internal product investment with acquisitions that add data, interoperability, laboratory informatics or customer access. What changes the answer: The answer changes when speed to market outweighs integration cost and product investment.

  12. 12
    SECTION 04

    04

    04.

    Section 04 of 06 — Precedent Transactions Show Buyers Paying for Distinct Strategic Assets. The transaction record spans workflow software, health engagement and medical technology. Use this divider to reset the room before the section's pages; the progress dots show where the argument stands. 12

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 04 04 PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS Precedent Transactions Show Buyers Paying for Distinct Strategic Assets The transaction record spans workflow software, health engagement and medical technology. 04 of 06 Health Care Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 12

  13. 13
    04 · DEAL CASE STUDIES

    Transaction Pricing Varies by the Health Care Software Model Buyers Add

    Transaction Pricing Varies by the Health Care Software Model Buyers Add.

    Transaction Pricing Varies by the Health Care Software Model Buyers Add 3 of 22 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. 46 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; divestiture roles reassigned; duplicate precedent id); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 31 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.

    Everything on this page

    04 · DEAL CASE STUDIES Transaction Pricing Varies by the Health Care Software Model Buyers Add 3 of 22 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. 46 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; divestiture roles reassigned; duplicate precedent id); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 31 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. Health Care Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 13 Jun-2026 $350M Altaris, LLC acquires Simulations Plus, Inc. EV / LTM revenue 4.3x EV / LTM EBITDA 16.3x WHY THE DEAL HAPPENED The transaction suggests that Altaris, LLC saw value in Simulations Plus, Inc.'s scientific software position and established earnings base. The fit pairs sponsor ownership with a specialized software asset. HOW THE TARGET WAS VALUED The recorded value was $350M, with pricing at 4.3x revenue and 16.3x EBITDA. The two measures benchmark both revenue quality and profitability. May-2023 $161M Rosecliff Acquisition Corp I acquires Spectral MD Holdings, Ltd. EV / LTM revenue 6.5x EV / LTM EBITDA n/a WHY THE DEAL HAPPENED The transaction suggests interest in Spectral MD Holdings, Ltd.'s medical-technology capabilities and clinical use case. The fit brings a medical-technology asset into Rosecliff Acquisition Corp I. HOW THE TARGET WAS VALUED The recorded value was $161M at 6.5x revenue. The revenue benchmark places emphasis on commercial adoption and future scale. Jun-2023 $112M WebMD Health Services Group, Inc. acquires Limeade, Inc. EV / LTM revenue 0.7x EV / LTM EBITDA 8.8x WHY THE DEAL HAPPENED The transaction suggests that Limeade, Inc.'s engagement capabilities fit WebMD Health Services Group, Inc.'s health-services position. The combination brings related customer engagement offerings together. HOW THE TARGET WAS VALUED The disclosed value was $112M at 0.7x revenue and 8.8x EBITDA. The terms benchmark a modest revenue valuation alongside an established earnings measure.

  14. 14
    SECTION 05

    05

    05.

    Section 05 of 06 — Strengthen the Operating Evidence Behind the Valuation Story. Focus decisions on revenue quality, workflow depth, delivery efficiency and expansion. Use this divider to reset the room before the section's pages; the progress dots show where the argument stands. 14

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 05 05 STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Strengthen the Operating Evidence Behind the Valuation Story Focus decisions on revenue quality, workflow depth, delivery efficiency and expansion. 05 of 06 Health Care Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 14

  15. 15
    05 · STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

    Operating Proof Matters More than a Broad Sector Label

    Operating Proof Matters More than a Broad Sector Label.

    Operating Proof Matters More than a Broad Sector Label 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. 15

    Everything on this page

    05 · STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Operating Proof Matters More than a Broad Sector Label 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. Health Care Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 15 FOR OWNERS Define the Business Model Precisely Separate subscription software, professional services and technology-enabled delivery. Strategic positioning improves when revenue quality and operating economics are clear. FOR MANAGEMENT TEAMS Turn Workflow Depth into Expansion Use module adoption, site expansion and interoperability to deepen customer value while protecting implementation efficiency. FOR BOARDS Test Build Versus Buy Compare internal investment with acquisitions that add proprietary data, validated workflows or attractive customer access.

  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 Health Care 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 (10.1x); amber marks below · 7 rated companies; 3 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 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 (10.1x); amber marks below · 7 rated companies; 3 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 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. Health Care 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 — ≥15.0x · median 19.0x · 2 companies Veeva Systems Inc. VEEV Laboratory and clinical workflow applications $38.4B 20.7x 12% 45% 57 Health Catalyst, Inc. HCAT Healthcare data and information services $192M 17.3x -16% 5% -11 CORE — 7.8x–15.0x · median 10.1x · 3 companies Certara, Inc. CERT Healthcare data and information services $1.6B 12.7x 2% 31% 34 Solventum Corporation SOLV Adjacent: diagnostic instruments and supplies $20.3B 10.1x 3% 24% 27 ExlService Holdings, Inc. EXLS Adjacent: health technology consulting and managed… $5.6B 9.7x 12% 21% 33 DISCOUNT — <7.8x · median 5.2x · 2 companies Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation CTSH Adjacent: health technology consulting and managed… $26.5B 6.0x 5% 19% 24 biote Corp. BTMD Adjacent: care delivery facilities $157M 4.4x 5% 19% 25

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

    All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First

    All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First.

    All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First 22 transactions with disclosed terms in this tier (53 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. 46 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; divestiture roles reassigned; duplicate precedent id); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 31 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.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (1 OF 2) All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First 22 transactions with disclosed terms in this tier (53 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. 46 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; divestiture roles reassigned; duplicate precedent id); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 31 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. 18 of 22 transactions shown; the rest are in the companion workbook. Health Care Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 18 Date Transaction EV EV/LTM Rev EV/LTM EBITDA Why it matters Jun-2026 Altaris, LLC → Simulations Plus, Inc. $350M 4.3x 16.3x Altaris, LLC agreed to acquire Simulations Plus, Inc. at a recorded $350M value, 4.3x revenue and 16.3x EBITDA. The terms frame a profitable scientific software asset. Jun-2024 Simulations Plus, Inc. → Pro-ficiency Holdings, Inc. n/a 6.7x n/a Simulations Plus, Inc. acquired Pro-ficiency Holdings, Inc. at 6.7x revenue. The transaction suggests interest in adding adjacent clinical capabilities. Jun-2024 Valero Energy Corporation → Argus Group Holdings Limited n/a n/a 7.6x Valero Energy Corporation agreed to acquire Argus Group Holdings Limited at 7.6x EBITDA. The pricing provides an earnings-based reference for an information-services asset. Jun-2023 WebMD Health Services Group, Inc. → Limeade, Inc. $112M 0.7x 8.8x WebMD Health Services Group, Inc. acquired Limeade, Inc. at $112M and 0.7x revenue. The transaction paired two health-engagement businesses. May-2023 Rosecliff Acquisition Corp I → Spectral MD Holdings, Ltd. $161M 6.5x n/a Rosecliff Acquisition Corp I agreed to acquire Spectral MD Holdings, Ltd. at $161M and 6.5x revenue. The terms frame a medical-technology asset around revenue. Apr-2023 Mars, Incorporated → Heska Corporation n/a n/a 8.8x Mars, Incorporated agreed to acquire Heska Corporation at 8.8x EBITDA. The transaction linked an animal-health buyer with a veterinary diagnostics asset. Mar-2022 N. Harris Computer Corp → Allscripts Hospitals & Physician Segment n/a 0.8x n/a N. Harris Computer Corp agreed to acquire Allscripts Hospitals & Physician Segment at 0.8x revenue. The transaction centered on established hospital and physician software workflows. Jan-2022 Vera Whole Health → Castlight Health n/a 2.0x n/a Vera Whole Health agreed to acquire Castlight Health at 2.0x revenue. The combination brought care delivery and health-navigation capabilities together. Jan-2022 Stryker Corporation → Vocera Communications, Inc. n/a 13.3x n/a Stryker Corporation agreed to acquire Vocera Communications, Inc. at 13.3x revenue. The terms point to the strategic relevance of embedded clinical communication workflows.

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

    All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First

    All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First.

    All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First 22 transactions with disclosed terms in this tier (53 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. 46 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; divestiture roles reassigned; duplicate precedent id); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 31 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.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (2 OF 2) All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First 22 transactions with disclosed terms in this tier (53 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. 46 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; divestiture roles reassigned; duplicate precedent id); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 31 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. 18 of 22 transactions shown; the rest are in the companion workbook. Health Care Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 19 Date Transaction EV EV/LTM Rev EV/LTM EBITDA Why it matters Aug-2021 Certara, Inc. → Pinnacle 21, LLC $310M n/a n/a Jun-2021 JBT Corporation → Prevenio (CMS Technology, Inc.) n/a n/a 13.6x Jan-2021 Phreesia, Inc. → QueueDr Inc. $2M n/a n/a Value shown as recorded in the filing; deal value unit unresolved. Dec-2020 HMS Holdings Corp. → Gainwell Technologies (Veritas Capital Backed) n/a n/a 21.2x Nov-2020 Kinderhook Industries, LLC → SYNLAB Analytics & Services B.V n/a 3.1x n/a Oct-2019 Parthenon Capital Group → MRO Corporation n/a n/a 14.1x Jun-2019 Dassault Systèmes SE → Medidata Solutions, Inc. n/a 7.5x 31.0x Nov-2018 ResMed Inc. → MatrixCare Holdings, Inc. n/a n/a 25.0x Value shown as recorded in the filing; deal value unit unresolved. Apr-2018 Vets First Choice → Henry Schein Animal Health n/a 0.7x 8.8x

  20. 20
    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 2026-09-28 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. 20

    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. Health Care Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice 20 VALUATION BASIS Primary valuation basis: EV / EBITDA on CY2027E consensus (7 of 10 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 21%, 7 of 10 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 Health Care Software and it clears the coverage gate with 7 of 10 companies (70%). EV / Revenue, P / E are carried as a cross-check. The set earns: 7 of the 9 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 24 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 444 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 (443) · home.treasury.gov (1). The companion workbook beside this deck carries the complete source index.

  21. 21

    The Higher Public Pricing Sits with Clearer Workflow, Data and Earnings Quality.

    The Higher Public Pricing Sits with Clearer Workflow, Data and Earnings Quality..

    Closing — The Higher Public Pricing Sits with Clearer Workflow, Data and Earnings Quality. The companion tables beside this deck carry the full universe, the exclusion ledger and the complete source index for any figure a client wants to trace. 21

    Everything on this page

    The Higher Public Pricing Sits with Clearer Workflow, Data and Earnings Quality. NeuraCap AI — Health Care Software Coverage September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential Health Care Software Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 21

Sources and methodology

This report covers Health Care Software (Information Technology › Software and Services › Health Care Software) with market data and consensus estimates as of September 28, 2026. The company universe is the 10 listed companies whose core business is Health Care Software according to NeuraCap's industry classification of each company's reported business segments (a company is included only when this industry is central to what it does, not merely adjacent to it). Companies in the set: Butterfly Network, Inc. (BFLY), biote Corp. (BTMD), CeriBell, Inc. (CBLL), Certara, Inc. (CERT), Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation (CTSH), ExlService Holdings, Inc. (EXLS), Health Catalyst, Inc. (HCAT), Schrödinger, Inc. (SDGR), Solventum Corporation (SOLV), Veeva Systems Inc. (VEEV). The market map groups them by business vertical — Adjacent: connected medical devices: 2 companies (BFLY, CBLL); Healthcare data and information services: 2 companies (CERT, HCAT); Adjacent: health technology consulting and managed services: 2 companies (CTSH, EXLS); Laboratory and clinical workflow applications: 2 companies (VEEV, SDGR); Adjacent models: 2 companies (SOLV, BTMD). 7 of the 10 companies carry a valid multiple on the primary valuation basis and form the rated set behind every cohort statistic; the others are shown but do not enter the statistics.

Scope and company universe

This report covers Health Care Software (Information Technology › Software and Services › Health Care Software) with market data and consensus estimates as of September 28, 2026. The company universe is the 10 listed companies whose core business is Health Care Software according to NeuraCap's industry classification of each company's reported business segments (a company is included only when this industry is central to what it does, not merely adjacent to it). Companies in the set: Butterfly Network, Inc. (BFLY), biote Corp. (BTMD), CeriBell, Inc. (CBLL), Certara, Inc. (CERT), Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation (CTSH), ExlService Holdings, Inc. (EXLS), Health Catalyst, Inc. (HCAT), Schrödinger, Inc. (SDGR), Solventum Corporation (SOLV), Veeva Systems Inc. (VEEV). The market map groups them by business vertical — Adjacent: connected medical devices: 2 companies (BFLY, CBLL); Healthcare data and information services: 2 companies (CERT, HCAT); Adjacent: health technology consulting and managed services: 2 companies (CTSH, EXLS); Laboratory and clinical workflow applications: 2 companies (VEEV, SDGR); Adjacent models: 2 companies (SOLV, BTMD). 7 of the 10 companies carry a valid multiple on the primary valuation basis and form the rated set behind every cohort statistic; the others are shown but do not enter the statistics.

What was excluded and why

24 records failed a validation gate and never feed a statistic in this report (1 excluded from universe; 23 excluded from aggregate). Each exclusion, with its reason: SOPH — The ticker SOPH carries a preferred, warrant or unit suffix and the security name gives no sign of an operating company (effect: excluded from universe) · BFLY — EBITDA is non-positive; EV/EBITDA is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · BFLY — EBITDA is non-positive; EV/EBITDA is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · BFLY — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · BFLY — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · BFLY — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · BFLY — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · CBLL — EBITDA is non-positive; EV/EBITDA is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · CBLL — EBITDA is non-positive; EV/EBITDA is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · CBLL — EBITDA is non-positive; EV/EBITDA is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · CBLL — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · CBLL — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · CBLL — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · CBLL — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · CERT — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · HCAT — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · HCAT — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · SDGR — EBITDA is non-positive; EV/EBITDA is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · SDGR — EBITDA is non-positive; EV/EBITDA is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · SDGR — EBITDA is non-positive; EV/EBITDA is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · SDGR — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · SDGR — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · SDGR — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · SDGR — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate)

Primary valuation basis and how it was chosen

Primary valuation basis: EV / EBITDA on CY2027E consensus (7 of 10 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 21%, 7 of 10 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 Health Care Software and it clears the coverage gate with 7 of 10 companies (70%). EV / Revenue, P / E are carried as a cross-check. The set earns: 7 of the 9 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. The basis is selected in two steps: the industry's customary valuation conventions set the order of preference, and each convention is then tested for coverage — the share of companies with a valid, plausibility-checked multiple on the chosen period. A convention is used only when enough companies carry it; the best-covered convention is used, and disclosed, when none clears the threshold. Coverage measured for this report — EV / EBITDA: 7 of 10 companies; EV / rEVenue: 10 of 10 companies; P/E: 7 of 10 companies. 2 companies show a non-meaningful EV / EBITDA denominator and are excluded from that statistic. 3 companies show a non-meaningful P / E denominator and are excluded from that statistic.

How the multiples and statistics are computed

Enterprise value (EV) is market capitalisation at the as-of date plus total debt minus cash and equivalents from the latest reported balance sheet, reconciled against the platform's stored value and disclosed where the two differ. Forward multiples divide EV (or the share price for P/E) by the consensus estimate for the stated calendar period; trailing multiples use the last twelve months of reported figures from SEC filings. A multiple with a negative or immaterial denominator is treated as not meaningful and excluded from every statistic. Cohort statistics are medians and quartiles over the rated set only; a group median with fewer than three observations is shown as the single company's figure and labelled as such. Valuation tiers cut the rated set at its quartiles (tiers cut at the rated set's quartiles: Premium ≥15.0x, Core 7.8x–15.0x, Discount <7.8x — NeuraCap groupings). Revenue growth compares consecutive calendar-year consensus revenue; EBITDA margin divides consensus EBITDA by consensus revenue for the same period. Figures shown in this report and the calculation behind each: 10.1x = median(ev_ebitda CY2027E) (7 rated companies) · 19.0x = median(ev_ebitda CY2027E) within Premium tier (n=2) · 10.1x = median(ev_ebitda CY2027E) within Core tier (n=3) · 5.2x = median(ev_ebitda CY2027E) within Discount tier (n=2) · 7.8x = median(ev_ebitda CY2027E) | growth ≥ 5% (n=4) · 12.7x = median(ev_ebitda CY2027E) | growth < 5% (n=3) · 11.4x = median(ev_ebitda CY2027E) | EBITDA margin ≥ 21% (n=4) · 6.0x = median(ev_ebitda CY2027E) | EBITDA margin < 21% (n=3) · 27% = median Rule of 40 score (revenue growth + EBITDA margin) (n=7)

Precedent transactions: what is in the record and why

The precedent record holds the M&A transactions in Health Care Software recorded from SEC filings (8-K announcements and the documents they reference), newest first, with each value and multiple linked to the exact passage in the filing that states it. 53 transactions were recorded for this industry; 22 are shown. 31 recorded transactions with neither a disclosed value nor a multiple are omitted because they say nothing about price; they remain in the companion workbook. Deal multiples are enterprise value over the target's last-twelve-month revenue or EBITDA at announcement, as disclosed; they are not restated to the public basis and no spread to the public multiples is claimed. Before a transaction reaches the record it passes a screen for mirrored or duplicate filings of the same deal, for divestitures where the filer is the seller rather than the buyer, for carve-outs recorded under the parent's name, and for values whose citation describes something other than the price paid (a debt raise, a termination fee); such records are corrected or excluded and the correction is noted. Data-quality notes on this record: 22 × deal value unit unresolved; 19 × no evidence record; 2 × duplicate precedent id; 3 × divestiture roles reassigned. Case studies lead with the 3 richest stories — disclosed value, a readable multiple, newest first.

Sources

Company financials and transaction terms come from the companies' own SEC filings on EDGAR (10-K, 10-Q and 8-K documents), linked from each figure in the report. Forward figures are analyst consensus estimates for the calendar periods shown. Share prices and market capitalisations are market data as of September 28, 2026. Treasury yields are published by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. 448 source documents stand behind this report; by publisher domain: sec.gov, home.treasury.gov (1). Every figure on every page is traceable to one of these records; nothing in the report is derived from outside data.

Interpretation and important notice

Tier labels, situation maps, the agenda and the implications pages are NeuraCap analytical views drawn from the recorded evidence and are labelled as such. The report is informational: it is not investment advice, not a recommendation to buy or sell any security, not an opinion of value and not an offer of any kind. Readers should perform their own diligence before acting on anything described here.

This report is published for information only. It is not a recommendation to buy or sell any security, an offer or solicitation, an appraisal or a fairness opinion, and no fiduciary relationship is created by reading it. Multiples that fail NeuraCap’s plausibility gates are excluded and never plotted. See the full methodology and the disclaimer.

More coverage in Information Technology

Want this analysis for a company in Health Care Software?

Company valuation reports run the same method against a single business — public or private.

Get a free sample reportBrowse the research