New Data From KeyBanc Demonstrates SAAS Companies Poised to Power the Post-Pandemic Recovery in 2022
November 2, 2021
While the pandemic shutdowns of 2020 have led to supply chain disruptions, dampening growth across the physical universe, SAAS companies have rebounded strongly as the workforce relied on accelerated digital transformation to live, work, and play.
New data demonstrates that SAAS companies are poised for robust growth in 2022. A recent report from KeyBanc Capital Markets (KBCM) analyzes survey results of private SaaS companies conducted in June and July 2021. For this year’s survey, KBCM included responses from senior executives at more than 350 companies.
Below are some of the key findings from the survey analysis.
- KBCM found a reacceleration of growth as companies recovered from the economic disruptions caused by COVID-19.
- Survey respondent forecasts for 2021 show growth levels increasing back to a median of 36% for companies with more than $5 million dollars in annual recurring revenue (ARR), as the disruptions from COVID-19 become less severe.
- Like many industries, the global private SaaS sector experienced a slowdown in growth during 2020. Median growth slowed to 28%, notably below the pre-pandemic range of 35-40% which the survey has historically polled.
- Median ARR historical growth of 28% aligns with Fall 2020 SaaS Survey COVID Edition results. Historically, median growth for participants in our surveys has been in the 35-40% range, underlining COVID’s impact on SaaS businesses in 2020.
- Forecasted growth for 2021 was 36%, significantly higher than for 2020.
- Exit expectations on public listings were so high that they nearly equaled those focusing on acquisition by both financial sponsors and strategic buyers.
- Valuation statistics showed a median multiple of 8.4 times annual recurring revenue in a capital raise or change of control since January 2020.
- As expected, companies anticipating an eventual public listing are growing significantly faster and burning more – specifically on Sales and Marketing. These companies are also able to drive more upsell and expansion revenue evidenced by strong net dollar retention.
The full survey results can be found here.
Disclaimer
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.
Author(s)
Related Insights
October 21, 2026
Foley Viewpoints
The $2,500 Question: What Employers Need to Know About Contributing to Trump Accounts
Trump accounts are not just a matter for families; they also give employers a new tax-advantaged benefit to offer to employees. The OBBBA created “Trump accounts,” or tax-advantaged savings accounts for children, and a companion tax break that lets employers contribute up to $2,500 per employee each year to the accounts of employees and their dependents.
October 21, 2026
Foley Viewpoints
No More Counting Zeros: IRS Proposed Rules Make Dependent Care FSA Testing Easier and May Open the Door to the $7,500 Limit
For many companies, the end of the plan year brings an unwelcome headache: the DCAP fails its nondiscrimination testing, and HCEs learn that their elections must be capped or that part of their benefit will be taxable. Newly proposed regulations provide some relief for these issues.
October 19, 2026
Blogs
EEOC Reduces the Time to Respond to EEOC Charges, But to What End? (And What You Can Do to Support Your Counsel’s Ability to Respond Quickly)
By now you have likely heard that the EEOC has significantly reduced the time to respond to a notice of a pending EEOC charge. Historically, when a respondent received a notice of an EEOC charge (which are delivered via e-correspondence — so be on the lookout for e-mail from the EEOC), it typically had at least 30 days to provide a response. That 30-day period could oftentimes be extended by two to four weeks by filing an online request for the extension, which the EEOC would usually grant so long as the respondent could illustrate that it was working diligently to respond,not anymore.