What is LBO software?

Software that models a leveraged buyout: the price, the debt and equity funding it, the interest and repayment schedule, and the resulting return — usually IRR and MoIC — over a holding period and an assumed exit. It ranges from a simple spreadsheet template to a platform that runs the model as part of a full deal record.

Do I need dedicated LBO software for a small business acquisition?

Not always. A straightforward, all-cash purchase of a simple business can be modelled adequately in a well-built spreadsheet. Dedicated software earns its place once the structure gets real — debt capped by the target's own balance sheet, an earn-out or vendor note, covenants that need testing year by year — because that is where hand-built spreadsheets are most likely to hide an error or quietly skip a check.

What is the difference between LBO software and business valuation software?

Valuation asks what a business is worth today, using methods such as a multiple of EBITDA, a discounted cash flow or comparable transactions. LBO or returns modelling starts from an assumed purchase price and asks what a buyer's return will be given how the deal is funded, structured and eventually exited. The two are related — a deal economics engine typically uses the valuation as an input — but they answer different questions.

Should LBO software show IRR before or after fees and carried interest?

Ideally both. Gross IRR shows the return on the underlying deal; net IRR, run through a proper waterfall of capital return, preferred return and then carry, shows what a capital provider actually receives once a performance fee is due. Software that only reports one figure without saying which it is can misrepresent what an investor will actually see.

Can LBO software model an earn-out or a vendor note, or only an all-cash price?

This varies a great deal between tools, and it is worth testing directly: ask the vendor to add a real earn-out or vendor note to a base case and show that the return figure actually moves. A tool that always prices the flat headline number regardless of how the price is paid is not modelling the structure that will actually be signed.

Does TrueValue replace a lender or a lawyer when structuring a leveraged deal?

No. It gives everyone working on the acquisition one consistent funding plan, covenant test and return figure to start from. The lender's own credit decision, the facility agreement and any tax advice on the structure remain with the professionals engaged to provide them.

Evaluation guide

The Best LBO Software for Business Acquisitions: How to Evaluate It

Most software called "LBO software" is either a spreadsheet template built for one analyst's desk, or a platform built for a private equity firm running a portfolio of many companies at once. A searcher, an independent sponsor or a corporate development team buying a single business needs something in between: a model that solves funding against the target's own accounts, structures a real consideration (not just an all-cash price) and reports the levered and unlevered return side by side — connected to the same deal record as the diligence and the offer, not a spreadsheet nobody else on the deal can open. This is a framework for testing any candidate against that job, not a ranked list.

Get TrueValue Explore the demo workspace

Solo £149 · Deal Team £499 · Firm £1,490 a month
Annual: two months free
10-targets-in-14-days guarantee

The shapes "LBO software" actually takes

Spreadsheet LBO templates are the default starting point for most buyers, and for good reason: they are free or cheap, infinitely flexible, and every finance professional already knows how to drive one. Their limits show up once the deal gets a real structure — an earn-out, a vendor note, an asset-backed facility capped by the target's own balance sheet — because each of those has to be built by hand, and a formula error in a hidden cell is invisible until the numbers stop reconciling. Standalone LBO calculators sold as a single web tool are quick for a back-of-envelope check but rarely model more than a flat price, a debt percentage and an exit multiple — useful for a first pass, not for a structure a lender or an investment committee will actually scrutinise. Fund-portfolio platforms are built for a private equity firm tracking many portfolio companies against fund-level reporting, and are priced and implemented for that scale, which is usually the wrong shape and the wrong cost for one acquisition. And a smaller set of buy-side acquisition platforms carry the LBO and returns model as one part of a single deal record — built from the target's own filed accounts rather than a blank template, alongside the valuation, the funding plan and the diligence that will actually determine whether the numbers hold up.

None of the four is automatically the wrong answer. A buyer with a simple all-cash offer and a straightforward balance sheet can get a perfectly good answer from a well-built spreadsheet. A buyer structuring debt, an earn-out and a vendor note together, needing the funding to actually be raisable against the target's own assets and needing to show a lender or a committee a return figure that holds up to questions, is the case this framework is written for.

What to test before you price a real deal on it

Run these against a live workspace with a real target's accounts, not a demo pre-populated with someone else's numbers.

Funding and leverage

Does secured debt get capped at what the target's own filed balance sheet actually supports, or is it a percentage you type in and hope is raisable?
When the target's accounts do not state an asset figure, does the tool honestly say the cap cannot be enforced, or does it quietly apply one anyway?
Are transaction costs and the working-capital the business will absorb treated as real cash items funded by equity, or ignored entirely and left to overstate the return?

Consideration and structure

Can the price be built from more than one line — cash at completion, a deferred instalment, an earn-out with its own metric and cap, a subordinated vendor note — and run together as one structure?
Does adding an earn-out or a vendor note actually change the price the return hurdles will support, or does the model keep pricing a flat headline number regardless of how it is paid?
Does a lender-style covenant — leverage, interest cover, debt service cover — get tested year by year against the structure, not only checked once at entry?

Returns

Does IRR come back as a genuinely solved figure, including a clear answer for the case where the cash flows do not resolve to one, or does the tool always produce a confident-looking number regardless?
Can you see the levered equity IRR and the unlevered, all-cash IRR on the same deal side by side, so leverage's contribution to the return is visible rather than hidden inside one figure?
Where outside capital and a performance fee are part of the structure, is net return calculated through a real waterfall — capital back, a preferred return, then carry on the excess — rather than a flat percentage applied to gross profit?

Sensitivity and the deal record

Can you flex leverage, exit multiple and holding period and watch IRR and MoIC move immediately, rather than rebuilding formulas each time?
If a diligence finding changes an assumption — a customer concentration, a working-capital adjustment — does the same model see it, or does the LBO sit in a separate file nobody remembers to update?
Is a saved scenario re-evaluated against the current model when assumptions change, or frozen at whatever the answer happened to be the day it was saved?

Five questions for a demo

"Cap the secured debt against a real target's own accounts. What happens if I ask for more than the assets support?" A tool that refuses or visibly caps the draw — and says why — is telling you something a flat debt percentage never will.

"Add an earn-out and a vendor note to an all-cash offer. Does the return actually change?" Most real acquisitions are not paid entirely in cash at completion — if the IRR is identical whatever the consideration structure, the model is not actually pricing the structure you agreed.

"Show me the levered IRR and the unlevered IRR on the same deal, side by side." If the tool cannot separate the two, it cannot tell you how much of a projected return is the business improving versus how much is the debt.

"What does IRR return when the cash flows genuinely have no clean solving rate?" A confident number every time is a warning sign; a solver that can say it could not resolve one is being honest about a real mathematical limitation.

"Change the exit multiple and the holding period. How long does it take to see the new numbers?" If changing one assumption means rebuilding a chain of spreadsheet formulas, sensitivity testing will not actually happen in practice, however good the base case looks.

Where TrueValue fits, honestly

TrueValue's deal economics engine runs the LBO and returns model as part of one deal record rather than a separate file. The funding plan solves from the price backwards and caps a secured or asset-backed draw at what the target's own filed accounts actually support — and where the accounts do not state an asset figure, it says the cap is not being enforced rather than inventing one. Transaction costs are modelled as a fee schedule funded by equity, not folded silently into debt, and the working-capital movement the business will absorb is taken out of the cash available to service debt before covenants are tested — leverage, interest cover, debt service cover and fixed-charge cover, year by year, not once at entry. The consideration can combine cash, deferred instalments, an earn-out with its own metric, threshold, cap and attainment assumption, and a subordinated vendor note, and IRR is solved with a bisection method that returns no answer rather than a number it cannot stand behind when the cash flows do not resolve cleanly. The levered and unlevered IRR are shown side by side, and where outside capital and carried interest apply, net returns run through a real waterfall — capital back, a preferred return, then carry on what is left — rather than a flat percentage. Up to five named scenarios can sit on one deal, each re-evaluated against the current engine rather than frozen at whatever it said when it was saved.

What it does not do: replace a lender's own credit committee, a lawyer's drafting of the facility agreement, or an accountant's advice on how a structure is taxed. It gives everyone working on the deal one consistent set of figures to start from; the professionals signing off the deal still do their own work on top of it.

On vendor comparisons

This page names no other vendor and ranks nothing. Run the tests above against a live workspace on each candidate, with a real target's own accounts, rather than trusting a feature list.

Frequently asked questions

What is LBO software?: Software that models a leveraged buyout: the price, the debt and equity funding it, the interest and repayment schedule, and the resulting return — usually IRR and MoIC — over a holding period and an assumed exit. It ranges from a simple spreadsheet template to a platform that runs the model as part of a full deal record.
Do I need dedicated LBO software for a small business acquisition?: Not always. A straightforward, all-cash purchase of a simple business can be modelled adequately in a well-built spreadsheet. Dedicated software earns its place once the structure gets real — debt capped by the target's own balance sheet, an earn-out or vendor note, covenants that need testing year by year — because that is where hand-built spreadsheets are most likely to hide an error or quietly skip a check.
What is the difference between LBO software and business valuation software?: Valuation asks what a business is worth today, using methods such as a multiple of EBITDA, a discounted cash flow or comparable transactions. LBO or returns modelling starts from an assumed purchase price and asks what a buyer's return will be given how the deal is funded, structured and eventually exited. The two are related — a deal economics engine typically uses the valuation as an input — but they answer different questions.
Should LBO software show IRR before or after fees and carried interest?: Ideally both. Gross IRR shows the return on the underlying deal; net IRR, run through a proper waterfall of capital return, preferred return and then carry, shows what a capital provider actually receives once a performance fee is due. Software that only reports one figure without saying which it is can misrepresent what an investor will actually see.
Can LBO software model an earn-out or a vendor note, or only an all-cash price?: This varies a great deal between tools, and it is worth testing directly: ask the vendor to add a real earn-out or vendor note to a base case and show that the return figure actually moves. A tool that always prices the flat headline number regardless of how the price is paid is not modelling the structure that will actually be signed.
Does TrueValue replace a lender or a lawyer when structuring a leveraged deal?: No. It gives everyone working on the acquisition one consistent funding plan, covenant test and return figure to start from. The lender's own credit decision, the facility agreement and any tax advice on the structure remain with the professionals engaged to provide them.

Go deeper

Price a real structure, not a flat headline number

Bring a target's own accounts and see the funding cap, the covenants and the levered vs unlevered return — or explore the buyer demo workspace with a sample deal already loaded.

Get TrueValue Explore the demo workspace