Lucidify | Pro
Perception Risk & ROI Calculator
Blog Contact Privacy
Total modeled EV impact
+$0.9M
Modeled EV impact at BSI 3 (Competitive Services / Tech-Enabled) | Signal avg: 52 → 72 | Peak Leverage Zone: 50–72 | Current EV: $45.0M
CAC reduction
-$419
per acquisition
Win rate lift
+1.0
pts (25.0% → 26.0%)
Pricing lift
+1.3%
on brand-influenced rev.
Cycle compressed
-1
days
1BSI diagnostic — brand sensitivity classification
Calibrates all financial outputs
Price elasticity
How price-sensitive are your buyers? Is discounting common to close deals? Does premium positioning hold in competitive situations?
Decision risk
Is this purchase perceived as high risk? Do multiple stakeholders need to approve? Is trust required before serious evaluation begins?
Competitive density
How crowded or substitutable is the category? Is meaningful differentiation difficult to communicate?
Sales complexity
How complex is the sales process? Does brand authority meaningfully shorten evaluation?
Reputation amplification
How much does brand reputation influence deal flow? Does a weak brand visibly slow pipeline?
Buyer
Who has final authority over this purchase decision? Select the role that could unilaterally approve or kill this deal at the last stage — not who is in the room.
BSI result
BSI 1BSI 2BSI 3BSI 4BSI 5
3.0
Competitive Services / Tech-Enabled
Crowded market. Reputation matters. Multi-stakeholder decisions.
Agencies, consulting, IT services, growth SaaS
Sales model
2Company inputs
× — or use Multiple lookup tab

CAC = total sales + marketing spend ÷ new customers in period. Include ad spend, sales compensation, tools, and overhead.

Paid advertising / lead gen
/mo
Sales team compensation
/mo
Marketing team compensation
/mo
Sales & marketing tools
/mo
Events, trade shows, PR
/mo
Content & creative production
/mo
Overhead allocation
/mo
New customers acquired
/mo
Estimated CAC
$11K

Monthly costs ÷ new customers per month. Include every cost that wouldn't exist without acquisition activity.

from first qualified conversation to signed contract

True win rate counts from first qualified conversation, not from proposal stage. Most companies overestimate by 15–20 points by only tracking proposal-to-close.

Leads → qualified
%
Qualified → demo / meeting
%
Demo → proposal
%
Proposal → close
%
Estimated end-to-end win rate
8.7%

Multiplies all stage conversion rates together. 60% qualified-to-proposal × 45% proposal-to-close = 27% true win rate.

From first qualified conversation to signed contract. Most companies underestimate by only measuring proposal to close.

Outreach → qualified
days
Qualified → discovery
days
Discovery → proposal
days
Proposal review & negotiation
days
Negotiation → signed
days
Estimated total cycle
69 days

EBITDA as a percentage of revenue. Used to calculate current EV and model the dollar impact of commercial efficiency improvements.

Gross margin
%
Sales & marketing
%
R&D / product
%
G&A
%
Other opex
%
Estimated EBITDA margin
18.0%

EBITDA = gross margin minus all operating expense %s. Excludes interest, taxes, D&A.

Typical EV/EBITDA by BSI tier and revenue scale

Revenue rangeLowHighMidpoint
<$10M4x7x5.5x
$10–50M5.5x9x7.3x
$50M+7x12x9.5x

Reflects typical PE transaction multiples for private companies. Adjust upward for high growth, high recurring revenue, or category leadership. General PE benchmarks — not proprietary Lucidify data.

3Signal scores — baseline vs. target
BSI 3
Peak Leverage Zone: 50–72 — the score range where each point of improvement generates the highest commercial return at BSI 3. Movements through this zone carry disproportionate EV impact. (Provisional thresholds)
Baseline scores
Assurance signals52PLZ
"Can I trust this company?"
Comprehension signals55PLZ
"What exactly does this company do?"
Differentiation signals48
"Why this company instead of another?"
Validation signals58PLZ
"Is there evidence this works?"
Leadership signals45
"Does this company lead or just participate?"
Structural coherence54PLZ
"Does this company feel coherent and stable?"
Target scores
Assurance signals72+20PLZ
"Can I trust this company?"
Comprehension signals74+19
"What exactly does this company do?"
Differentiation signals70+22PLZ
"Why this company instead of another?"
Validation signals76+18
"Is there evidence this works?"
Leadership signals68+23PLZ
"Does this company lead or just participate?"
Structural coherence72+18PLZ
"Does this company feel coherent and stable?"
4Modeled impact
BSI 3
EV impact (total)
+$0.9M
modeled perception risk delta
Current EV
$45.0M
18% margin × 5x
EBITDA lift
+$0.1M
~35% revenue flow-through
Multiple support
+0.04x
5x → 5.04x
CAC reduction
-$419
per acquisition (2.1%)
Win rate lift
+1.0pts
25.0% → 26.0%
Pricing lift
+1.3%
on brand-influenced revenue
Cycle compressed
-1d
90d → 89d
CategoryBuyer questionBaselineTargetDeltaPLZ statusZoneProgress
Assurance signals"Can I trust this company?"5272+20Within PLZModerate Strength → Strong Signals
Comprehension signals"What exactly does this company do?"5574+19Crosses PLZModerate Strength → Strong Signals
Differentiation signals"Why this company instead of another?"4870+22Crosses PLZWeak Signals → Strong Signals
Validation signals"Is there evidence this works?"5876+18Crosses PLZModerate Strength → Strong Signals
Leadership signals"Does this company lead or just participate?"4568+23Crosses PLZWeak Signals → Strong Signals
Structural coherence"Does this company feel coherent and stable?"5472+18Within PLZModerate Strength → Strong Signals
Lucidify models directional commercial sensitivity based on BSI classification and brand signal strength. Impact is non-linear: improvements in the Peak Leverage Zone generate disproportionately higher commercial returns than equivalent improvements at higher or lower score ranges. BSI sensitivity ranges are conceptual classifications calibrated to category research — not yet empirically derived from Lucidify's proprietary dataset. Outputs represent scenario-based projections. Not guarantees of financial performance. No causation implied.