Before burn outruns growth
Burn Multiple for Startups: How Much Cash You Burn per Dollar of New ARR
A rising ARR slide that never mentions what it cost is not validation. Burn multiple asks a smaller, honester question: how much cash did the company burn, in this period, to add each incremental dollar of ARR? Write that efficiency tripwire before you look. Matching it is a decision signal — not a forecast that you will succeed, and not a substitute for naming the weakest assumption first.
Last updated: October 14, 2026
Direct answer
What is burn multiple — and why write the tripwire first?
Burn multiple is Net Burn divided by Net New ARR. It answers how much cash you burn to generate each incremental dollar of ARR. Lower is more efficient. Matching or missing a pre-written efficiency tripwire is a decision signal. It is not a prediction that you will succeed.
Key takeaways
What to remember
- Burn multiple = Net Burn ÷ Net New ARR. David Sacks (Craft Ventures, 23 April 2020) flipped Bessemer’s Efficiency Score so the focus stays on burn as a multiple of growth — not on a hype ratio of capital raised over ARR.
- Sacks’s board-meeting examples, used as written: burned $2M while adding $1M ARR → 2x, called reasonable for an early-stage startup. Burned $5M to add $1M net new ARR → 5x, called terrible; cut costs. Extraordinary investment of 3x burn or more relative to growth is a possible PMF-quality or other business-problem warning — not a proof.
- The same $1M ARR can look like pull (burned $2M) or push (burned $5M). That is an inference VCs may make. It is not a product-market-fit certificate. Pre-revenue, the ratio does not compute: keep burn low in Sacks’s Wilderness Period and cross the Penny Gap quickly.
- First Round’s Levels of PMF (8 April 2024), written for sales-led B2B, includes company-level burn multiple in Efficiency. Level 1: often N/A. Level 2: not worse than 5X. Level 3: 1–3X. Level 4: 0–1X. Those are labeled Level marks, not a law for every consumer app.
- Write signal + threshold + calendar window + named action before you measure. Prefer the trend across periods over one heroic month. A Yibud score is not burn multiple and not a success prediction.
Why it matters
Why burn multiple is a tripwire — not a trophy
Founders treat “we grew ARR this quarter” as the whole story. Growth without the cash it took is a headline, not a decision. Two published sources are useful here as instruments, not as personal odds: Sacks on why almost any serious problem shows up in the multiple, and First Round on why efficiency belongs in a product-market-fit conversation.
A catch-all proxy — Sacks’s list, not a new taxonomy
Sacks calls burn multiple a catch-all. Any serious problem eventually raises burn, cuts net new ARR, or does both at the wrong rates. His list, used as written: a gross-margin problem (too much COGS, no operating leverage as you scale); a sales-efficiency or CAC problem (burn rises relative to new ARR even while growth continues); churn (a leaky bucket nets against the denominator); a growth challenge (spend on marketing, give-aways, discounts, or promotions to paper over a stall); and a founder leadership problem (skill or will to control burn). This page does not add a sixth category.
Efficiency is part of First Round’s PMF definition
First Round’s Levels of PMF (published 8 April 2024) is written for sales-led B2B. Efficiency includes finding the customer (CAC), selling and closing (sales conversion, magic number, CAC payback), activating and supporting (NRR), producing (gross margin), and company-level burn multiple. Demand without a path to efficient delivery is the roadside-stand mirage on their page. Keep that caveat: their Level numbers are not a law for every consumer app.
The four terms
Net Burn, Net New ARR, burn multiple, tripwire
These four fields are the instrument. If any one is fuzzy, the number is a slide, not a tripwire. This page does not publish an Amazing / Great / Good / Suspect / Bad grade table. Sacks gave board examples and a stage direction of travel. Use those, then write your own bar.
Net Burn — cash consumed in the same window as the growth
Cash out minus cash in for the period you will report — a month or a quarter, not “since founding.” Sacks likes the ratio because you can judge whether burn is too high in any given month, quarter, or year. Do not mix a year’s burn with one month’s ARR. If you cannot name the window, you do not have Net Burn. You have a feeling.
Net New ARR — new ARR minus what leaked in the same window
ARR added in the period, net of churn. Sacks is explicit: churn nets against the denominator. A leaky bucket makes efficient growth hard. Do not report only gross new logos and hide the cancellations. If Net New ARR is zero, the ratio does not compute — that is the pre-revenue case, not a license to invent a denominator.
Burn multiple — Net Burn ÷ Net New ARR
How much cash you burned to generate each incremental dollar of ARR. Sacks contrasts two other ratios: Hype Ratio = Capital Raised (or Burned) / ARR, and Bessemer’s Efficiency Score = Net New ARR / Net Burn. He prefers flipping Bessemer so the focus stays on burn as a multiple of growth. Lower is more efficient. The number always adjusts to the most recent period — unlike the Hype Ratio, which permanently dings sunk capital.
The tripwire — written before you measure
Signal + threshold + calendar window + named action (cut spend / refine the channel / keep testing / kill paid growth). Write it on a dated page before the first period report. A kinder bar after the results is a recap, not a tripwire. Matching the bar is a decision aid. It does not prove you will succeed.
Sacks’s board examples
2x, 5x, 3x-or-more — and the stage direction of travel
Sacks wrote these as board-meeting illustrations on 23 April 2020, not as a five-tier grade table. Use the examples as he wrote them. Do not paste a later “Amazing / Great / Good / Suspect / Bad” chart onto this page and call it his.
The Q1 board: $2M / $1M is 2x; $5M / $1M is 5x
The startup burned $2M in the quarter while adding $1M to ARR. That is a 2x burn multiple — Sacks calls it reasonable for an early-stage startup. The same quarter, burned $5M to add $1M of net new ARR, is a 5x multiple. He calls that terrible. That company should probably cut costs immediately: it is spending like a later-stage company without delivering later-stage growth.
3x or more, and the pull-versus-push inference
Too many startups report growth without saying what investment produced it. If extraordinary investment — 3x burn or more relative to growth — is required, Sacks treats that as an indicator that product-market fit is not quite what it appears, or that some other problem sits in the business. Generating $1M ARR by burning $2M looks more like the market pulling product out. Generating the same $1M by burning $5M looks more like the startup pushing product onto the market. Label that as an inference VCs may make. It is not a proof of product-market fit.
When the ratio does not compute
Pre-revenue, net new ARR is zero, so the ratio does not compute. Sacks says that is fine in the Wilderness Period: keep burn low and cross the Penny Gap quickly. A longer R&D stretch can be argued if you believe a tech moat will make the multiple catch up once you sell. He also notes that claiming sales will be “spring-loaded” after extra burn rarely turns out true — an argument for shipping the lower-burn embarrassing version and iterating.
Stage direction of travel, illustrative, not hard law: a seed-stage company might sit around 3 because it just started selling; after Series A the multiple might drop to around 2; later stages should improve toward 0 as the company approaches profitability. If the multiple worsens while the company matures, something is wrong even if headline growth still rises in nominal terms.
Unlike the Hype Ratio, which is based on total capital raised and permanently dings wasted time and money, burn multiple ignores sunk costs and always gives the latest period a clean look. That is why a cost cut shows up immediately — and why one heroic month is a weak sitting compared with the trend.
Published Level marks
First Round Levels 1–4 — labeled, not universal
First Round publishes these as Level benchmarks for sales-led B2B, not as a law you must hit next quarter. Use them as a vocabulary for “how serious is efficiency at this Level,” then write your own tripwire for the period you can actually measure. Do not paste 0–1X onto a pre-seed consumer idea and call it research.
| Level (First Round) | Burn multiple they name | How they frame it |
|---|---|---|
| Level 1 — Nascent | Often N/A | You often do not even know gross margin or burn multiple. Efficiency comes last at this stage. Source: First Round, Levels of PMF, 8 April 2024. |
| Level 2 — Developing | Not worse than 5X | They still treat efficiency as secondary, but you should at least know the number. Source: First Round, Levels of PMF, 8 April 2024. |
| Level 3 — Strong | 1–3X | Burn multiple in the 1–3X range. This is also where they say you have to get serious about efficient economics (CAC payback, LTV/CAC). Source: First Round, Levels of PMF, 8 April 2024. |
| Level 4 — Extreme | 0–1X | Burn multiple 0–1X. Source: First Round, Levels of PMF, 8 April 2024. |
Yellow-flag illustration from First Round’s Level 2 list: burning $200K a month while bringing in only $20K net new ARR a month is a 10x multiple — they call that less than stellar, and they note founders often aim as close to 1 (or below) as possible. That example is a warning inside their Developing level, not a seed-stage consumer-app target.
Scope note, from the same essay: the framework is written for sales-led B2B. First Round is explicit that the hunt for product-market fit is more of a dice game for consumer apps. Do not claim these multiples as universal.
How to run it
How to measure burn multiple without faking a lifetime
This is Yibud’s suggested sequence, not a Sacks checklist and not a First Round law. Honor the tripwire you wrote before the first report. If you cannot name the decision the number would change, you are building a slide.
- 1
Pick one period and compute both sides for that same window
A month or a quarter — name the dates. Net Burn is cash consumed in that window. Net New ARR is ARR added minus ARR lost in that same window. Do not mix Q3 burn with trailing-twelve-month ARR. If you cannot name the period, stop.
- 2
Write the tripwire before you look
Signal is the multiple (or its direction versus the last period). Threshold is the miss / pass line you will honor. Window is the calendar close — often the same period, sometimes one period later so you can see the trend. Action is cut spend, refine the channel, keep testing, or kill paid growth. Do not rewrite the bar after the report.
- 3
Prefer the trend across periods over one heroic month
Sacks’s stage story is a direction of travel: the multiple should improve as the company matures. One cheap month after a brutal quarter is not the story. Q2 versus Q3 on the same definition tells you if efficiency is improving or worsening. Headline ARR can still rise while the multiple gets worse. That is the sitting that matters.
- 4
Do not invent a denominator
Pre-revenue, Net New ARR is zero and the ratio does not compute. Keep burn low. Do not plug in a “we will add $X next year” forecast so the spreadsheet prints a multiple. That is a model, not a measurement.
- 5
Keep churn in the denominator. Keep channels honest.
Churn nets against Net New ARR. Gross new logos with silent cancellations flatter the multiple. A company-level multiple can still hide one expensive channel — that is what CAC payback is for, on a different page. This sitting is the company cash number for the period.
What you leave with
The burn-multiple tripwire (copy this)
If the sitting produced a ratio and no dated action, you did not finish. Fill the brackets. Leave nothing as “efficiency is fine,” “soon,” or “we’ll know it when ARR looks right.”
The fill-in contract
Product: [name]. Period: [month or quarter, start–end]. Hypothesis this number can falsify: [we can grow ARR without burning 3x or more relative to that growth]. Net Burn: [cash out − cash in in this window]. Net New ARR: [ARR added − ARR churned in this window]. Signal: [burn multiple = Net Burn ÷ Net New ARR, and/or change vs last period]. Threshold: [e.g. honor a miss if the multiple is worse than 3x — Yibud template using Sacks’s 3x-or-more warning, not a First Round Level 4 law]. Window: books close [date], written before the first report. Action if miss: [cut spend / refine the paid channel / keep testing / kill paid growth]. Compare the next period on the same definition. A Yibud score does not fire this line.
The “worse than 3x” line is Yibud’s suggested early-stage template so you have a number to honor, taken from Sacks’s 3x-or-more warning — not First Round’s Level 3 1–3X or Level 4 0–1X pasted onto seed. Rewrite the threshold before you measure if you have a reason. Do not rewrite it after. This page publishes no industry median.
Example tripwire (Yibud’s suggested template, not a law)
If, for Q3, Net Burn ÷ Net New ARR is worse than 3x when we close the books on 30 September → we cut paid acquisition and contractor spend the same week and keep only organic plus existing pipeline. Do not invent a next-year ARR forecast to create a denominator. Do not ignore churned ARR.
A 2x multiple on a single lucky month is still one month. A Yibud report score does not fire this tripwire.
The fork
When to use a burn-multiple tripwire — and when not to
Burn multiple is the wrong first instrument when there is no ARR yet, or when you still do not know if anyone will pay. It is the right instrument when money is already moving at company level and you are deciding whether burn is buying growth or buying a story.
Use it when you have ARR, a named period, and a spend decision
You can name Net Burn and Net New ARR for the same month or quarter. You are about to raise a round, hire, scale paid, or tell yourself “growth covers it.” That is when a dated efficiency line earns its keep. Prefer two or three periods so you can see direction, not one trophy quarter.
Do not start here when you are pre-revenue — or still need first money, reach, or a who-filter
No ARR yet? The ratio does not compute. Keep burn low; do not invent a denominator. Still testing whether anyone will pay once? Take the money question to the willingness-to-pay page. Still testing whether current users would be very disappointed? Ellis survey. Months to recover CAC on one channel is a different instrument — that is the payback page. Still writing Stop / Pivot / Continue? Those are the decision contracts. This page supplies one company-level efficiency number those contracts can later read. It does not replace them.
Worked example
One SaaS quarter you can copy (illustrative — fictional)
The quarter below is illustrative. Names, product, and counts are invented so you can see the setup. It is not a study, not an industry benchmark, and not a Yibud report. Copy the method, not the numbers.
The promise, written before the quarter closes
Illustrative names: founder Priya Shah at Inboxlane, a shared inbox for boutique agencies. ARR exists. The tempting trophy is a Q3 slide that shows ARR up and never mentions cash. The tripwire is written first, on 1 July: honor a miss if Q3 burn multiple is worse than 3x — Yibud’s suggested template from Sacks’s 3x-or-more warning, not First Round Level 4 pasted onto a twelve-person company.
The inputs, kept honest
Q3 Net Burn = $180,000 (cash out minus cash in for 1 July–30 September). Gross new ARR in the quarter = $80,000. Churned ARR in the same quarter = $20,000. Net New ARR = $60,000. Burn multiple = $180,000 ÷ $60,000 = 3.0x. Last quarter (Q2) on the same definition was 2.4x. Headline ARR still rose. The multiple worsened.
The tripwire, written 1 July
Signal: Q3 burn multiple (Net Burn ÷ Net New ARR) and its change versus Q2. Threshold: honor a miss if the multiple is worse than 3x, or if it worsens versus Q2 while the company is no longer seed-brand-new. Window: books close 30 September. Action if miss: cut paid acquisition and one contractor role the same week; keep only organic plus existing pipeline. A Yibud score does not fire this line. The 3x bar is Yibud’s suggested template for this sitting, not Sacks’s 2x “reasonable” example treated as a law, and not First Round’s 0–1X Level 4 bar.
What a miss looks like — and what must not happen
Illustrative close: 3.0x is not worse than 3x on the raw threshold, but the multiple moved from 2.4x to 3.0x while ARR still grew. That is Sacks’s “wrong direction while the company matures” sitting. Honor the action you wrote — or admit you wrote a bar you will not keep. Do not drop churned ARR so Net New ARR becomes $80,000 and the multiple prints 2.25x. Do not forecast Q4 ARR to invent a friendlier denominator. Do not treat First Round’s Level 4 0–1X as permission to ignore a worsening 3x. Interview the churn. Keep Q4 on the same definition.
Write the tripwire before the first report. If the window closes and the period misses the bar you wrote, honor the action. If it cleared the bar, continue to the next cheapest test — usually the next period on the same definition, or a kill/pivot contract that now has a number to read. The method is the dated page, not the ARR headline.
Not the same page
Burn multiple vs CAC payback, vanity metrics, WTP, Ellis, NPS, failure rates, market size, Yibud scores, and decision contracts
Several Yibud pages sit next to this one. Mixing them up turns a channel payback month, a waitlist, a recommend score, or a mid-band engine number into “capital efficiency works.”
CAC payback — months to recover a cohort’s acquisition cost, not this ratio
That page asks how many months of contribution recover fully-loaded CAC for a named cohort or channel. This page asks how much company cash you burned, in a period, per dollar of net new ARR. Payback can look fine on one cheap organic vintage while the company-level multiple is terrible. A 2x burn multiple does not tell you LinkedIn ads pay back. Keep the instruments on separate pages.
CAC payback for startups →Vanity metrics — hygiene class, not this efficiency tripwire
That page is the sorting hat: hits, cumulative signups, and waitlist size feel like progress and do not tell you what to do next. This page is one specific actionable efficiency number. A pretty burn-multiple chart with no tripwire can still be vanity. A waitlist is not Net New ARR.
Vanity metrics for startups →Willingness to pay — first money on a deal, not period burn versus ARR
That page is a deposit, pre-order, paid concierge, or priced checkout as proof that money moved once. Burn multiple needs a period of burn and a period of net new ARR. A paid first month with a 5x company multiple can still miss the tripwire you wrote.
Willingness-to-pay test →Sean Ellis PMF survey — disappointment among current users
That page’s signal is the percent of recent real users who would be very disappointed if the product disappeared. Sacks treats a 3x-or-more multiple as a possible PMF-quality warning — an inference, not Ellis’s question. Do not treat “very disappointed” as a burn multiple, and do not treat a 2x multiple as Ellis’s bar.
Product-market fit survey →NPS — one recommend-intent score
That page is stated recommendation intent among people who already used you. A high NPS does not lower burn. A 2x multiple does not mean people would recommend you. Keep the instruments on separate pages.
NPS for early-stage startups →Startup failure rate — population frequencies, not the math
That page is what the failure data says at population level — BLS establishment survival, venture-backed “failure” as reported, and why a base rate is not your fate. This page teaches one efficiency instrument those tables do not compute. It does not invent a “percent of startups that die from a high burn multiple.”
What percentage of startups fail →Market sizing — TAM/SAM/SOM, not capital efficiency
That page names buyers you can reach and a revenue story. A large SOM does not make a 5x multiple healthy. A 2x multiple does not size a market. Do not file a TAM slide under burn multiple.
Startup market sizing →Yibud scores — not burn multiple, and not a success prediction
The validation-score and score-calculator pages explain Startup MRI numbers from a deterministic rule engine on a one-line idea plus five questions. Those scores point at the weakest assumption to test next. They are not burn multiple. They are not CAC payback. Do not read a mid-band monetization score as “efficiency works,” and do not read a 2x multiple as a Yibud GO.
Kill, pivot, critical assumption, decision — contracts that can read this number
Those pages write Stop, rewrite one dimension, name the one claim that would kill the idea if false, or decide after evidence. This page can supply the efficiency instrument those contracts later read: a dated, period-level burn multiple against a bar you wrote first. An ARR headline with no denominator cannot fire a kill line honestly.
Where Yibud fits
Neither burn multiple nor a Yibud score predicts success
Yibud is a free, no-signup startup idea validator. Scores come from a deterministic rule engine, not from a language model guessing success. Optional AI text, when it is used, only polishes prose. It does not invent the number. A Startup MRI report can name a weak monetization or distribution assumption, then a Day-7 Continue / Refine / Re-test / Stop signal. The score is a flashlight on the weakest assumption to test next — not burn multiple, not CAC payback, not a forecast. Burn-multiple work sits next to that assumption: write the tripwire, do not hope a rising ARR slide means you can keep spending. If you already have a report, start with the named assumption, not the overall score. Then run the period yourself. The method on this page stands alone if you never open the analyzer.
Analyze my idea →Common mistakes
What usually wastes an early efficiency week
Treating a low multiple as proof you will succeed
A 2x quarter means that period cleared a bar you wrote — or matched Sacks’s “reasonable early-stage” example. It does not mean the startup will succeed. It is not Ellis’s very-disappointed question, not a deposit, and not a Yibud GO. Neither burn multiple nor a Yibud report score predicts success.
Computing the ratio before any ARR — and inventing a denominator
Pre-revenue, Net New ARR is zero. The ratio does not compute. Plug in a forecast and you have a model, not a measurement. Keep burn low in the Wilderness Period. Cross the Penny Gap. Do not print a fake multiple.
Ignoring churn in Net New ARR
Sacks’s leaky-bucket point is the whole sitting: churn nets against the denominator and the multiple worsens even if gross new ARR looks fine. Gross logos without cancellations is a vanity number wearing an efficiency costume.
Celebrating growth while the multiple worsens
Sacks is explicit: if the multiple goes the wrong way as the company matures, something is wrong even if headline growth still rises. A later-stage 5x is not “the same as seed.” Direction of travel is the story.
Pasting First Round’s Level 4 0–1X onto a pre-seed consumer idea
Those Level marks are a sales-led B2B framework. First Round does not present them as a law for every consumer app. Level 1 often has no multiple at all. Write your own tripwire. Label Sacks’s 2x / 5x as his board examples, not a universal grade table.
Sources
Where these ideas come from
- David Sacks / Craft Ventures, “The Burn Multiple,” 23 April 2020 — Used for the formula Burn Multiple = Net Burn / Net New ARR; the contrast with Hype Ratio (Capital Raised or Burned / ARR) and Bessemer’s Efficiency Score (Net New ARR / Net Burn); the board examples $2M / $1M = 2x (reasonable early-stage) and $5M / $1M = 5x (terrible; cut costs); the 3x-or-more PMF-quality warning; pull versus push on $1M ARR; the catch-all list (gross margin, sales efficiency, churn, growth challenge, founder leadership); pre-revenue does not compute; Wilderness Period and Penny Gap; the stage direction of travel (~3 at seed, often ~2 after Series A, toward 0 later); and the point that burn multiple adjusts to the recent period unlike the Hype Ratio. This page does not invent an Amazing / Great / Good / Suspect / Bad tier table.
- First Round Capital, “Levels of PMF,” 8 April 2024 — Used for the Efficiency dimension including company-level burn multiple (with CAC, magic number, CAC payback, NRR, gross margin); Level 1 (often N/A); Level 2 (not worse than 5X); the Level 2 yellow-flag illustration of $200K monthly burn / $20K net new ARR = 10x, with founders often aiming as close to 1 or below as possible; Level 3 (1–3X); and Level 4 (0–1X). Scope: written for sales-led B2B. This page does not treat those multiples as a universal law.
In one paragraph
Summary you can quote
Burn multiple is Net Burn ÷ Net New ARR: how much cash you burn to generate each incremental dollar of ARR. Lower is more efficient. Sacks / Craft Ventures (23 April 2020): flips Bessemer’s Efficiency Score so the focus stays on burn; $2M burned / $1M ARR = 2x, called reasonable early-stage; $5M / $1M = 5x, called terrible; 3x or more relative to growth is a possible PMF-quality or other business-problem warning; $1M ARR on $2M burn looks like pull, on $5M burn like push — a VC inference, not a proof; catch-all for gross margin, sales efficiency, churn, stalled growth papered over with spend, and founder control of burn; pre-revenue does not compute; seed might be ~3, after Series A often ~2, later toward 0; if the multiple worsens as the company matures, something is wrong even if headline growth rises. First Round (8 April 2024), for sales-led B2B: Efficiency includes burn multiple; Level 1 often N/A; Level 2 not worse than 5X (yellow-flag 10x on $200K / $20K); Level 3 1–3X; Level 4 0–1X. Write signal + threshold + window + action before you measure. Prefer the trend. Matching the gate is a decision signal. Neither burn multiple nor a Yibud score predicts success.
FAQ
Questions founders actually ask
What is burn multiple?
Net Burn divided by Net New ARR for the same period. It answers how much cash you burned to generate each incremental dollar of ARR. David Sacks (Craft Ventures, 23 April 2020) prefers this flip of Bessemer’s Efficiency Score so the focus stays on burn as a multiple of growth. Lower is more efficient. It is an efficiency number, not a success score.
What is a good burn multiple for a startup?
This page does not publish a universal “good” grade table. Sacks’s board examples: 2x ($2M burn / $1M ARR) he calls reasonable for an early-stage startup; 5x ($5M / $1M) he calls terrible. He flags 3x or more as a possible PMF-quality warning. Stage direction of travel, illustrative: seed might be ~3; after Series A often ~2; later toward 0. First Round’s sales-led B2B Levels: L1 often N/A; L2 not worse than 5X; L3 1–3X; L4 0–1X. Write your own tripwire before you measure.
How is burn multiple different from CAC payback?
CAC payback is how many months of contribution recover fully-loaded acquisition cost for a named cohort or channel. Burn multiple is company-level cash burn per dollar of net new ARR in a period. One cheap channel can pay back while the company multiple is terrible. They answer different decisions. Use the payback page for the channel; use this page for the period cash number.
Can I compute burn multiple before I have revenue?
No. Pre-revenue, net new ARR is zero, so the ratio does not compute. Sacks treats that as fine in the Wilderness Period: keep burn low and cross the Penny Gap quickly. Do not invent a forecast denominator so a spreadsheet prints a multiple.
Is a Yibud score the same as burn multiple? Does it predict success?
No and no. Yibud scores come from a deterministic rule engine on your idea inputs. They point at the weakest assumption to test next. They are not burn multiple, not CAC payback, and not a forecast. Neither a burn-multiple pass nor a Yibud report score predicts success. You do not need an account to use this page.
Write the efficiency tripwire before the next period closes
Yibud scores weak assumptions with a deterministic engine. You write signal, threshold, window, and action while you are still honest — then a quarter’s burn multiple is a tripwire, not an ARR slide.
Generate a Yibud report →