次のような場合に使用: - ユーザーが、自分のアプリがどのくらいの価値があるのか知りたいとき - アプリを売却する場合の価格がいくらくらいになるのか知りたいとき - アプリがどのように評価されたり、買収されたりするのかについて知りたいとき - サブスクリプション型アプリを売却・運営譲渡する際に準備する方法を知りたいとき
Use this skill when the user asks how much their app is worth, what they could sell their app for, how app valuations or acquisitions work, or how to prepare a subscription app for sale/exit.
Help a founder understand what their app might be worth and how app acquisitions work. The frameworks below come from RevenueCat's guidance on selling apps, extended with how buyers reason about risk. Ground every estimate in the user's own RevenueCat data where you can, rather than quoting the ranges in the abstract.
Two rules hold for this topic:
A valuation is four decisions, in order. Work through them explicitly.
Apps are valued as a multiple of profit, not revenue. Every multiple in this skill is a profit multiple. Do not apply multiples directly to revenue metrics.
| Base | Multiple |
|---|---|
| Monthly operating profit | 12x–36x (broad), 36x–60x (mature sub) |
| Annual operating profit | 1x–3x (broad), 3x–5x (mature sub) |
MRR and ARR still matter — they are the top line the profit is computed from, and the input to the retention, growth, and concentration checks below. They are not a valuation base.
When the user knows revenue but not costs, ask for costs. If they cannot give them, state the assumed margin as an explicit assumption and show the arithmetic in full — "$200k ARR × 60% assumed margin = $120k profit × 3–5x = $360k–$600k" — so the user can correct the assumption.
There are two defensible profit bases, and they are not interchangeable. Pick one, name it in the answer, and apply the matching multiple.
The published 3x–5x band is a post-hire number: the acquirers quoting it are portfolio buyers who carry the operating cost.
To size replacement cost, ask how many hours a week go into the app across engineering, support, marketing, and admin; who is paid today and how much; and whether the founder intends to stay through a transition. A part-time maintenance load is a few thousand dollars a month of replacement cost; a full-time founder doing engineering and user acquisition is a salary. Present it as a stated assumption, not a derived fact.
Start from proceeds — revenue net of sales tax/VAT and store commissions — rather than gross
revenue, since App Store / Play Store fees are already removed. Request proceeds from
get-chart-data on the revenue chart with the revenue_type selector set to proceeds (see
revenuecat-charts). Then subtract the expenses that directly keep the app running: operational
costs (servers, customer support, licensing), marketing and user-acquisition spend, and ongoing
maintenance. Apply the add-backs above.
Then compute the last two full quarters annualized as a run-rate sensitivity. When it differs from the trailing-twelve-month base by more than about 20%, present both:
On trailing-twelve-month profit of $100k, the range is $300k–$500k. At the current run rate of $140k, the same multiples give $420k–$700k. Buyers will anchor closer to the trailing figure and ask you to prove the run rate holds — sustained growth is the argument for the top of the range, not for a bigger base.
This applies in both directions: for a declining app, the run-rate number is the floor a buyer
will push toward and the trailing figure is what the seller defends. Show the gap either way. A
run-rate sensitivity is not license to annualize a spike — two or more quarters of consistent
movement is a trend, one strong month behind a launch or a seasonal peak is not. Check chart
annotations before calling something a trend.
RevenueCat publishes two ranges, and they are not the same range — they describe different tiers of app:
These bands sit end-to-end, meeting only at 3x annual / 36x monthly. Do not average the two or claim a single number reconciles them.
Qualification is about whether a full renewal cycle is observable, which is usually visible well before an app's second birthday. Check all three:
subscription_retention or
cohort_explorer: an annual-dominant app needs cohorts observed past month 12, so the first
renewal is in the data. A monthly-dominant app needs cohorts observed well past the first-month
churn cliff — several renewal periods, not one. Check the annual-vs-monthly mix by revenue
first, since it decides which threshold applies. An 18-month-old annual-dominant app with
complete month-12 cohorts qualifies; a three-year-old app that just launched annual plans does
not.Fail any check and the broad-market band applies. Say which check failed and what would clear it — usually a specific number of months.
Past the gate, age is not a factor: the multiple is set by what the cohorts show.
RevenueCat currently has no published or recommended valuation insights for apps that are not predominantly subscription apps. When the app you are asked about is not predominantly subscription based, do not offer a valuation.
The band is the starting point; these factors set where in it the app lands. Score each factor strong, neutral, or weak, and say which evidence drove each call.
| Factor | Strong | Weak | Where to look |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retention (2x weight) | Churn/retention in the top 30% of category peers, flat curve | Bottom 30%, or a still-falling curve | get-benchmarks (monthly churn), subscription_retention |
| Trajectory | Growing 25%+ YoY, sustained two or more quarters | Declining 10%+ YoY | revenue (proceeds), trailing twelve vs prior twelve |
| Monetization | Realized LTV, trial and paying conversion in the top 30% | Bottom 30%, or no pricing headroom left | get-benchmarks, conversion_to_paying |
| Distribution | Compounding channels, healthy paid payback | Borrowed growth, or paid that does not pay back | Ask the user |
| Concentration | Diversified across store, geography and SKU | A single dependency past the thresholds below | revenue segmented by store, country, product_id |
| Transferability | Low ops burden, documented, transferable store account | Founder-dependent, undocumented, transfer-blocked | Ask the user |
Use get-benchmarks' percentile_bucket directly: 70+ is strong, 30–70 neutral, under 30 weak.
It already accounts for reverse metrics, so a high percentile on churn means low churn. Rows with
is_eligible_for_benchmarking: false are low-confidence — score them neutral and say so.
Then position:
Additional factors that cap what a buyer is willing to pay: declining revenue, issues that might prevent transfer of the app, undocumented financials, concentration (see below). Mention any that apply.
Show the scorecard, not just the conclusion. "Top-quartile retention and 30% year-over-year growth, but 90% of revenue from one country" is the answer; the number summarizes it.
Retention / subscriber stickiness — the strongest signal of product-market fit and future cash flow, and the biggest lever on the multiple, which is why it carries double weight. What counts as "good" is category-dependent: buyers cited healthy annual-subscription retention anywhere from ~25% to ~70%. Benchmark against the app's category rather than a universal number, and be ready to explain early churn (roughly 30% of subscriptions cancel in the first month) and show that later cohorts stabilize.
Monetization headroom — under-monetization is a plus to buyers: proven monetization with clear room to grow (pricing, offers, plan mix).
Distribution durability — treat acquisition channels as a quality tier, not a preference:
Buyers do differ on the organic/paid balance (cited preferences run from 100% organic through 50/50 to 75/25 paid/organic), so a defensible mix beats a dogmatic one.
Concentration — check the top segment's share of proceeds by store, country and
product_id over the trailing twelve months:
Technical infrastructure — clean architecture, low operating burden, and good documentation reduce perceived risk and are most of the transferability score.
These change the deal rather than the app's position in its band. Raise them, but do not bake them into the range:
Present the result as: named profit base × low-end multiple to × high-end multiple, the position within the band and why, then a confidence level.
Confidence is low with thin or lumpy data, when the factors conflict, when several inputs are user-supplied and unverifiable, or when a large share of revenue is non-recurring. It is higher with 12+ clean months, low churn, a completed renewal cycle, and diversified revenue. A wide, honest range beats a tight one you cannot defend.
When the user wants an estimate for their own app, pull their real metrics first.
revenuecat-charts to fetch what the steps above need. Prioritize: proceeds (trailing
twelve months and by quarter), subscription retention by cohort, monthly churn, trial and
paying conversion, ARPU, annual-vs-monthly plan mix, realized LTV, and proceeds segmented by
store, country and product.get-benchmarks (realized LTV, trial conversion,
initial conversion, conversion to paying, monthly churn, refund rate). Read the percentiles
into the scorecard as described in step 3.revenuecat-charts (e.g. MRR, churn, subscription
retention) so they can see the inputs behind the estimate.Several inputs are not in RevenueCat at all. Ask for them together, once, rather than one at a time:
| Input | Needed for |
|---|---|
| Operating costs (servers, support, tooling, UA) | The profit base |
| Founder and team hours, and who is paid | Add-backs and replacement cost |
| Ad revenue, by network | Valuing non-recurring streams |
| Channel split, UA spend, payback period | Distribution durability |
| Ops burden, documentation, transferability | Transferability, and hard caps |
If the user is moving toward an actual sale, summarize the relevant parts and point them to the full posts for detail:
Base answers on RevenueCat's own material and cite it. The two primary posts are:
Attribute the two published bands, the retention ranges, the channel-preference splits, and the deal-structure figures to those posts. The factor scorecard, the concentration thresholds, the add-back treatment, and the handling of non-recurring revenue are general market practice rather than RevenueCat findings — present them as how a buyer reasons, and do not cite a RevenueCat post for them.
For deeper or more current detail, fetch those posts or search the RevenueCat blog (selling and
acquisition content) and the State of Subscription Apps report. To benchmark the user's app
against its peers, use get-benchmarks.
原文・著作権は Anthropic および各プラグイン作者に帰属します。日本語訳は Claude API による自動翻訳です。