GF Data charges $3K a year. We ship the same thing native.
TL;DR — GF Data has been the standard benchmark set for lower-middle-market M&A multiples for fifteen years, delivered as a quarterly PDF. Arendel builds the same category of dataset natively from platform deals — anonymized, drillable, live — and it's bundled into every subscription.
The incumbent
If you run deals in the LMM segment, you know GF Data. It's the reference dataset — the thing you cite in an IC memo when you're justifying a multiple, the thing the seller's advisor references when pushing back on your bid.
The product is a PDF. It comes out quarterly. It aggregates transaction data contributed by member firms, and it sells for roughly three thousand dollars a year, per firm, per subscription. That price has been remarkably stable for a long time.
None of that is a criticism. GF Data built the standard, and the standard has held because the data is real and the methodology is disciplined. If you're staring at a $3K invoice trying to decide whether to renew, the honest answer is: probably yes, at least until something equivalent exists in a better shape.
The problem isn't the data. The problem is the delivery.
Why a PDF is the wrong shape
A quarterly PDF made sense when the alternative was mailing you a binder. It doesn't make sense in 2026.
Three things a PDF can't do:
It can't drill. You want to filter the aggregate to industrial services deals between $20M and $50M enterprise value in the Southeast? You're reading the report, scanning for the segment cut you need, and often it isn't there because the sample size in your specific slice wasn't big enough to publish. In a live database, you'd just filter and see what the sample supports.
It can't be live. By the time Q2 numbers land in the report, it's already deep into Q3. Deals you close between report drops don't inform the multiples you're quoting internally. You're always working off a lagging aggregate.
It can't cross-reference. A PDF is one shape at one moment. You can't ask it "show me every deal in this segment where the earnout structure was above 20% of consideration" or "how has the working capital peg negotiated in food-and-beverage rollups shifted over the last eight quarters." Those questions require a database, not a document.
What we built
Every deal that closes on Arendel contributes structured data — deal size, industry, geo, multiple, structure, key terms — to a shared benchmark dataset. Contributor data is anonymized before it enters the pool. No counterparty is ever identifiable. This is the same contribution model the incumbents use; the only difference is that the contribution happens automatically as a byproduct of running the deal on the platform, rather than as a separate quarterly upload.
Then we expose that dataset live inside the app. Filter by industry, deal size, geo, structure. See sample size for your cut in real time. Drill into distributions instead of just point estimates. If the sample is thin for your slice, the app tells you that — instead of silently omitting the cut from the quarterly print.
Every subscriber gets it. No separate SKU, no add-on, no upsell six months in.
How the flywheel works
The reason we can price this way is the flywheel:
- A shop closes a deal on Arendel.
- The deal's structured data enters the anonymized benchmark pool.
- Every subscriber's dataset improves — better sample sizes, tighter segment cuts, more recent data points.
- The dataset's improved usefulness attracts more shops to the platform.
- Return to step 1.
This is the same flywheel every network-effect product runs on. The specific insight for M&A benchmark data is that the deal system and the benchmark system are the same system — separating them (the way the incumbent industry has done for fifteen years) means you have to bolt on a manual contribution process, which caps how much data you can collect and how fresh it can be. Building them together means the data flows in for free.
How we compare
| GF Data (traditional) | Arendel | |
|---|---|---|
| Delivery | Quarterly PDF report | Live in-app, updated continuously |
| Segmentation | Fixed cuts published in the report | Filter live by industry, geo, deal size, structure |
| Sample transparency | Aggregate n disclosed per cut | Real-time n for every filter you apply |
| Latency | 1–2 quarters behind | Real-time as deals close |
| Price | ~$3,000/year subscription | Included in every Arendel plan |
| Contribution model | Manual quarterly upload | Automatic as a byproduct of closing on-platform |
| Additional value | Standalone dataset | Bundled with pipeline, diligence, LOI, closing workflow |
Where the incumbent still wins
To be fair on this: GF Data has a fifteen-year head start on historical depth. If you want to look at LMM multiples in 2013, they have it and we don't. Historical time-series depth is a genuine advantage of the incumbent product, and we won't match it for years.
We'd argue that for the questions most LMM sponsors are actually trying to answer — what's the market on this specific deal, right now, in this specific segment — a live drillable dataset built from recent deals matters more than a 15-year historical time series. But if your workflow specifically leans on the long historical view, keep the GF Data subscription. We're not trying to be everything to everyone.
What to do with the $3K
If you're an Arendel subscriber, you're already getting the benchmark layer. There's nothing else to buy. Reallocate the $3K.
If you're not yet an Arendel subscriber, the pricing page shows what you get in the base plan — the deal management, the diligence workspace, the LOI generator, and the benchmark database, all in one price. It costs less than the standalone benchmark subscription alone. The why-arendel page walks through the rest of what's bundled in.
The incumbent isn't going anywhere. But the standard for what "the LMM benchmark database" means is going to shift over the next few years, and we intend to be the reason it shifts.