Several well-run local businesses can each have loyal customers and still struggle to hire a finance team, invest in technology, or serve a national account. Bringing them together can make those investments practical. The value of a roll-up lies in what the combined company can do that its individual businesses could not.
A private equity roll-up, often called a buy-and-build strategy, combines an initial platform company with additional acquisitions to build a larger business. Those add-ons can bring new customers, locations, products, or capabilities, while the platform supplies management and resources that support the group.
The investment case has historical evidence behind it. BCG and HHL Leipzig found that buy-and-build investments generated a 31.6% average deal IRR, compared with 23.1% for standalone buyouts, in their return sample of 121 deals exited between 1998 and 2012.2 The study was predominantly European. Its findings support the potential of the strategy while showing how much execution and deal selection matter.
CapitalPad’s private equity roll-up statistics report examines the evidence on acquisition-led growth, historical returns, valuation multiples, financing, and industry consolidation. It connects the data with the work of building a stronger business, giving investors and operators a reference for evaluating buy-and-build opportunities.
U.S. buyout deals were add-ons
Q2 2025 · deal count · PitchBook, reported by Cherry Bekaert.1
Average buy-and-build deal IRR
Versus 23.1% for standalone buyouts · BCG/HHL historical return sample · exits 1998–2012.2
Median five-year revenue CAGR
Businesses with more than five add-ons · PwC/Gain.pro analysis published in 2025.4
A successful roll-up builds a more capable business
The strongest buy-and-build case connects acquisitions with improvements in the business itself. A platform might give local operators better purchasing terms, add services their customers already need, or spread the cost of technology and management across more revenue. The combined company becomes more valuable when those changes improve its earnings, resilience, or growth prospects.
The platform is the operating foundation for that work. An add-on, also called a bolt-on, is a business acquired by the platform or its group. A good platform has the leadership, systems, and financial capacity to absorb acquisitions while continuing to serve its existing customers.
| Value driver | What improves in the business |
|---|---|
| Management depth | A stronger leadership team reduces reliance on individual owners and supports a larger organization. |
| Customer reach | New locations, sales channels, or complementary services allow the group to serve more of its customers’ needs. |
| Operating efficiency | Purchasing, scheduling, facilities, and shared administration can work more efficiently across the combined business. |
| Information and controls | Consistent reporting helps managers see margins, cash needs, customer retention, and performance by location. |
| Buyer appeal | A larger business with dependable earnings and a capable management team may appeal to a wider set of future buyers. |
There is evidence for emphasizing that operating plan. Bain’s 2024 research examined 44 buy-and-build deals made between 2010 and 2019. Deals with a strategic rationale for organic growth or margin improvement achieved 2.2x reported MOIC, compared with 1.4x for those dependent on multiple arbitrage alone.3
Growth and margin improvement strengthened the return case
Reported multiple on invested capital by strategic approach · Bain analysis of 44 deals made in 2010–2019, published 2024.3
Chart: CapitalPad Research. Source: Bain, Building a Stronger Buy-and-Build. This is a historical sample comparison, not proof of causation. The article does not specify a net investor-return basis or the size of each subgroup. Bars share a zero-based scale of 2.5x.3
CapitalPad is a private equity co-investment group through which accredited investors can invest in lower middle market private equity on a deal-by-deal basis. Its investment focus includes platforms pursuing buy-and-build strategies alongside independent sponsors.13 CapitalPad Research examines the market evidence and operating plans behind those investments.
Add-on acquisition statistics show how widely private equity uses the strategy
Add-ons accounted for 75.9% of U.S. buyout deal count in Q2 2025, according to PitchBook data reported by Cherry Bekaert.1 That share shows how central acquisitions by existing portfolio companies have become to PE activity.
A high add-on share creates opportunities on both sides of a transaction. Platform owners can acquire complementary businesses; founders and smaller-company investors may have a pool of established platforms to consider as potential buyers. The relevant question is whether the business fits what those buyers are trying to build.
| Period | Reported statistic | Measure and source |
|---|---|---|
| Q2 2025 | 75.9% | Add-ons as a share of U.S. buyout deal count · PitchBook via Cherry Bekaert.1 |
| Full-year 2024 | 4,950 | U.S. smaller bolt-on acquisitions · PitchBook via NEPC.5 |
| Full-year 2025 | 4,509 | U.S. smaller bolt-on acquisitions · PitchBook via NEPC.5 |
Comparison: CapitalPad Research. The 75.9% figure is a share of transactions, not of capital invested, unique portfolio companies, or investors using the strategy. One platform can account for several add-on transactions. The annual counts retain NEPC’s “smaller bolt-on” description.
Annual bolt-on volume declined from 2024 to 2025, but remained above 4,500 transactions in the reported series.5 Widespread use of the strategy can coexist with a quieter acquisition year. Neither the add-on share nor the number of deals establishes whether buyers created value after closing.
European platforms also make extensive use of acquisitions
PwC’s analysis of Gain.pro data found that 48% of European PE-backed assets carried out add-on acquisitions during 2019–2024. The share was 55% in the Nordic countries, 53% in France, 48% in the UK and Ireland, and 41% in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.4
That European measure counts companies pursuing add-ons. The U.S. measure above counts individual buyout transactions. Both demonstrate adoption, but they should not be placed on the same market-share chart.
Buy-and-build return data supports the investment case
Buy-and-build outperformed standalone buyouts on average in BCG and HHL Leipzig’s historical return sample. The 2016 study reported a 31.6% average deal IRR for buy-and-build and 23.1% for standalone investments, an 8.5-percentage-point difference calculated from the published averages.2
Buy-and-build delivered higher average deal returns in the study
Average deal IRR · BCG/HHL · 121 exited deals, including 48 with add-ons · exits 1998–2012 · approximately 90% European and no U.S. companies.2
Chart and difference calculation: CapitalPad Research. Source: BCG/HHL, The Power of Buy and Build. Difference = 31.6% − 23.1% = 8.5 percentage points. Bars share a zero-based scale of 40%. These are historical deal-level results, not current expected returns or net returns to an individual investor.2
The study is useful because it also examines how the investments were built. Results differed by platform size, acquisition focus, and sponsor experience. Those differences give investors specific operating questions to investigate.
| Comparison | Configuration and average IRR | Comparison group and average IRR |
|---|---|---|
| Smaller platforms | Buy-and-build below $70M enterprise value: 52.4% | Standalone below $70M enterprise value: 20.3% |
| Larger platforms | Buy-and-build above $290M enterprise value: 12.5% | Standalone above $290M enterprise value: 16.2% |
| Acquisition focus | Add-ons deepening the existing industry focus: 43.5% | Add-ons diversifying into other industries: 16.4% |
| Number of add-ons | One or two add-ons: 35.5% | More than two add-ons: 19.9% |
| Sponsor experience | More than ten prior buy-and-build deals: 36.6% | Two or fewer prior buy-and-build deals: 27.3% |
Source: BCG/HHL, published 2016; deals exited 1998–2012.2 Platform-size bands are in USD enterprise value. Subgroups are drawn from a small, predominantly European sample selected for data availability. The averages identify historical associations; they do not establish an optimal acquisition count or an investable size cutoff.
Why the lower middle market fits the playbook
A smaller platform can have more room to add capabilities that larger businesses already possess. A finance function, professional sales management, or a broader service offering can change what the business is able to do. Acquisitions may also give it enough local density or product breadth to compete for customers it could not previously serve.
The size results are consistent with that opportunity, but the historical $70 million boundary is a study category rather than a universal rule. What matters in a new investment is how much the company can improve and whether the team has the resources to deliver those improvements.
CapitalPad’s lower middle market private equity statistics report examines the broader evidence on entry pricing, operating improvement, company scale, and historical outperformance.
Acquisition pace should follow the platform’s capacity
The one-to-two-add-on group’s stronger historical return is a reason to examine execution capacity, not to impose a two-acquisition ceiling. A platform with experienced management, repeatable integration processes, and suitable financing can support a different pace from a business that is still building those capabilities.
The practical test is whether previous acquisitions are delivering the expected results. If customer retention, reporting, cash conversion, or service quality are deteriorating, another closing may increase the workload before the platform is ready for it.
Add-on acquisitions are associated with faster business growth
Businesses with more than five add-on acquisitions recorded a median five-year revenue CAGR of 20.4%, compared with 7.6% for businesses with no add-ons, in the Gain.pro analysis presented by PwC in 2025.4 The comparison illustrates how acquisitions can accelerate the growth of a company’s revenue base.
Frequent acquirers built revenue faster
Median five-year revenue compound annual growth rate · endpoint groups from PwC’s European market analysis, using Gain.pro data · published March 2025.4
Chart: CapitalPad Research. Source: PwC, Unlocking Value with Buy-and-Build Strategies in the DACH Private Equity Market, page 4. Bars share a zero-based scale of 25%. This measures total revenue growth, which can include acquired revenue; it is not an organic growth rate, IRR, or causal estimate.4
Revenue growth becomes more valuable when the company can retain customers, convert sales into cash, and earn a satisfactory return on the acquisition price. Acquiring a business immediately adds its sales to the group; improving the combined business requires additional work.
That distinction also explains why the revenue and return studies can tell different stories. PwC’s growth comparison and BCG/HHL’s IRR comparison cover different samples and periods. They should not be combined to claim that fast-growing acquirers necessarily earn lower returns. A sound assessment follows both operating results and investor economics.
Multiple arbitrage can amplify the value of a stronger platform
Multiple arbitrage is the opportunity to acquire earnings at one valuation multiple and eventually sell the combined business at a higher one. In a roll-up, add-ons can lower the blended purchase multiple if their earnings are acquired more cheaply than the platform’s. A subsequent increase in the group’s valuation multiple creates another potential source of value.
The higher exit multiple has to be supported by the business and the market. Buyers may value management depth, a more diverse customer base, dependable reporting, or greater scale. Simply placing several companies under one holding company does not establish those advantages.
A worked example of blended acquisition pricing
Consider the following hypothetical acquisitions. The platform produces $5 million of EBITDA and costs 5.5x EBITDA. Add-ons contribute another $5 million of EBITDA at a 3.5x purchase multiple. The combined purchase enterprise value is $45 million for $10 million of EBITDA, a blended 4.5x multiple.
| Acquisition | EBITDA | Purchase enterprise value |
|---|---|---|
| Platform at 5.5x EBITDA | $5.0M | $27.5M |
| Add-ons at 3.5x EBITDA | $5.0M | $17.5M |
| Combined at 4.5x EBITDA | $10.0M | $45.0M |
Calculation: ($5M × 5.5 + $5M × 3.5) ÷ ($5M + $5M) = 4.5x. This isolates acquisition pricing before debt, transaction fees, integration costs, taxes, working-capital adjustments, or changes in earnings. It is not a return forecast.
The exit multiple changes what the combined business is worth
Hypothetical enterprise value of a business with $10M EBITDA · USD millions · earnings held constant across scenarios.
Calculation and chart: CapitalPad Research. Enterprise value = $10M EBITDA × exit multiple. Bars share a zero-based scale of $100M. These are sensitivity scenarios, not forecasts or investor proceeds. Equity value would require debt, cash, and other adjustments; an investor return also requires invested equity, cash flows, timing, and fees.
The example shows the attraction of combining sensible purchase prices with a business that can support a higher valuation. It also shows why the operating plan matters: if earnings weaken or the market will not pay the assumed multiple, the exit value changes. Growth and improved cash generation can contribute value even without a higher multiple.
An add-on is not automatically a cheaper acquisition
GF Data reported that add-ons with $1 million to $10 million of enterprise value averaged 5.7x EBITDA in the first three quarters of 2024, while platforms in the same size band averaged 4.5x.6 In that sample, demand for add-ons supported higher prices.
This is a comparison within the same size band. It does not establish that those add-ons cost more than the much larger platforms buying them. The relevant investment calculation is the actual blended cost of the group’s earnings, together with the cost of integration and the value of the capabilities acquired.
Roll-up examples show what consolidation can build
Insurance brokerage, veterinary services, home services, and pest control illustrate different ways to build value through acquisitions. Their common attraction is a base of operating businesses with customer relationships and opportunities to share resources. The operating model varies: some functions benefit from centralization, while others work best close to the customer.
| Business and sector | Reported evidence | What the sponsor built |
|---|---|---|
| AssuredPartners Insurance brokerage | 124 acquisitions and more than doubled revenue and EBITDA during Apax VIII’s ownership, reported February 2019.7 | A broader brokerage supported by investment in technology, sales, infrastructure, and senior leadership. |
| American Veterinary Group Veterinary services | More than 40 acquisitions; nearly 50 practices and urgent-care clinics. Latticework reported 6.5x MOIC and 82% IRR on its April 2021 sale.8 | Management and administrative infrastructure supporting veterinary partners and expansion into urgent care. |
| Apex Service Partners HVAC, plumbing, and electrical services | More than 8,000 employees and a $3.4B continuation transaction announced in October 2023.9 | A network of local service brands sharing resources, management expertise, and talent development. |
Selection and presentation: CapitalPad Research. Sources: Apax, Latticework, and Alpine disclosures.7, 8, 9 Latticework’s figures are sponsor-reported investment outcomes; the release does not specify a net LP basis. Apex’s $3.4B is the disclosed continuation-transaction amount, not a return multiple or an enterprise-value comparison.
Scale can preserve local strengths
In veterinary services, Latticework described an approach that allowed clinical partners to focus on patients while the group supplied administrative support.8 That is a useful example of the division of responsibility a platform can create. Central support is valuable when it helps the local business do its job better.
EQT’s Anticimex case study describes another approach. Add-ons along existing pest-control routes increase customer density and efficiency, while branch-level decision-making keeps the company close to customers. The group also developed remote-monitoring technology that changes how the service is delivered.10 The investment case combines acquisitions with operating and product improvements.
For an operator considering a sale or partnership, the important questions are concrete: which resources will improve, which decisions stay local, and how will service quality be maintained? Those answers say more about the next stage of the business than acquisition count alone.
A successful example is evidence of possibility
Public disclosures help explain how a strategy has worked in particular companies. Sponsors naturally highlight strong outcomes, and the available cases are not a representative sample. It is useful to study the operating approach without treating an exceptional exit as an expected return.
Enterprise-value growth also differs from equity performance. A company can become much larger through additional acquisitions, new capital, and borrowing. Dividing a later valuation by an earlier valuation does not recover the return earned by its original investors.
Add-on financing should leave room to improve the business
A buy-and-build plan needs capital for the acquisitions and for the work that follows them. Financing can include new equity, seller rollover, acquisition facilities, and borrowing supported by the existing group. A platform’s established lender relationships may make an add-on easier to finance than a new standalone business.
| Capital source | All deals in the size band | Platform-only deals |
|---|---|---|
| Senior debt | 66.7% | 31.8% |
| Subordinated debt | 13.7% | 6.8% |
| Equity | 19.6% | 61.4% |
Source: GF Data, reported by its managing director in ACG’s Middle Market Growth, January 2025.6 The all-deal financing profile reflects the acquiring entity and is heavily influenced by add-ons. The columns are not an add-on-only versus platform-only comparison and should not be treated as recommended capital structures.
Lower incremental equity requirements can help a platform pursue acquisitions, but they do not make the underlying business exposure disappear. Debt service and integration spending must be supported by cash flow, and the wider group may be responsible for the borrowing.
A credible plan includes the cost of systems, management hiring, retention, facilities, and working capital. It also shows how the business can continue operating if the next acquisition takes longer to close or an expected improvement arrives late.
Integration turns the roll-up thesis into results
Buy-and-build execution requires a repeatable process for making acquired businesses work better together. The operating plan should identify what will change, who is responsible, how much it will cost, and how progress will be measured.
A platform may standardize financial reporting before changing customer-facing systems. It may centralize purchasing while retaining local brands and service teams. The right sequence depends on how the business earns its customers’ trust and where the improvements are available.
| Part of the plan | Evidence that makes it credible |
|---|---|
| Acquisition fit | A clear reason for each target: customer access, geography, capability, or operating efficiency. |
| Integration leadership | Named people with time, authority, and relevant experience to carry out the work. |
| Earnings quality | A bridge from reported EBITDA to sustainable cash earnings after necessary investment. |
| Operating measurement | Tracking of customer retention, service quality, margins, cash conversion, and results by acquired business. |
| Acquisition pacing | A process for checking earlier integrations before adding more complexity. |
| Exit readiness | A coherent business, credible reporting, and a management team that a future owner can rely on. |
What the published failure estimates do and do not measure
The sources reviewed for this report do not establish a representative failure rate for all private equity roll-ups. Opus Connect cites a 60% rate of missing projected synergies within two years, but its public summary does not supply a reproducible dataset or measurement method.11 Missing a synergy forecast is also different from losing investor capital or a business failing.
The estimate is best read as a reminder to examine execution assumptions. The investment case becomes stronger when management can explain how improvements will be delivered and show evidence from prior integrations.
Competition and sector requirements also belong in the acquisition plan. In May 2024, the FTC and DOJ launched an inquiry into serial acquisitions and roll-up strategies.12 That is historical regulatory context, not a claim that every roll-up is problematic. The strategy should be built around better service, capabilities, and efficiency, with transaction-specific legal review where needed.
The holding period must accommodate the work
Acquiring the businesses, integrating them, and demonstrating improved performance can take years. A plan that depends on a quick exit may leave little room for delays or a weak sale market. CapitalPad’s private equity holding-period research explains how a longer hold changes liquidity and annualized returns.
How accredited investors can invest in buy-and-build strategies
Accredited investors can participate in buy-and-build strategies through private equity funds or individual co-investments in companies pursuing an acquisition plan. A fund delegates company selection to the manager. A deal-by-deal approach allows the investor to examine a particular platform, sponsor, and set of investment terms.
CapitalPad is a private equity co-investment group through which accredited investors can invest in lower middle market private equity on a deal-by-deal basis, including opportunities in buy-and-build platforms. Investors choose which individual opportunities to participate in, generally through a deal-specific special purpose vehicle (SPV) alongside an independent sponsor.13
For a roll-up investment, that review can connect the platform’s existing earnings with the sponsor’s proposed acquisitions, integration resources, financing, and expected investor proceeds. The investor should be able to distinguish what already exists from what the plan still needs to deliver.
CapitalPad’s independent sponsor statistics report examines the experience, capital relationships, and investment terms behind this form of deal-by-deal ownership. Accredited investors can also review how investing through CapitalPad works.
Private equity roll-up statistics: common questions
What is a private equity roll-up strategy?
A private equity roll-up combines businesses into a larger group, usually around an initial platform company. In a buy-and-build strategy, acquisitions add customers, locations, products, or capabilities while the owner develops the management and systems needed to support the group. Providers use these terms differently, so this report retains each source’s measurement definition.
What percentage of private equity buyouts are add-ons?
Add-ons represented 75.9% of U.S. buyout deal count in Q2 2025, according to PitchBook data reported by Cherry Bekaert.1 This is a transaction-count share. It does not mean that 75.9% of invested capital or unique portfolio companies were in roll-ups.
Do buy-and-build investments outperform standalone buyouts?
BCG and HHL Leipzig reported average deal IRRs of 31.6% for buy-and-build and 23.1% for standalone investments in a 121-deal sample exited between 1998 and 2012.2 The sample was predominantly European and excluded U.S. companies. It supports historical outperformance in that sample, not a guaranteed or current market-wide return advantage.
Does completing more acquisitions produce better returns?
Not necessarily. Acquisitions can increase revenue while also adding purchase costs, borrowing, and integration work. PwC’s published growth data and BCG/HHL’s return data measure different samples and outcomes.4, 2 A useful analysis tests both the operating benefit of each acquisition and the price paid to obtain it.
What is multiple arbitrage in a roll-up?
Multiple arbitrage is the potential gain from acquiring earnings at a lower valuation multiple than the combined business commands at exit. Cheaper add-ons can reduce the blended purchase multiple. The exit valuation still depends on earnings quality, business capabilities, and market conditions; greater size alone does not guarantee an uplift.
Which industries are suited to buy-and-build?
Industries with many established operators, repeat customer demand, and useful shared capabilities can support buy-and-build strategies. Insurance brokerage, veterinary services, home services, and pest control provide documented examples.7, 8, 9, 10 Fragmentation creates potential acquisition supply; the operating case determines which combinations are worthwhile.
What is the failure rate for private equity roll-ups?
No representative all-market failure rate is established by the sources reviewed here. A frequently cited 60% estimate concerns missed synergy forecasts within two years, rather than a defined rate of investment losses or bankruptcies.11 Those outcomes should not be treated as equivalent.
How can accredited investors invest in roll-up platforms?
Accredited investors can invest through funds or individual co-investment opportunities. CapitalPad helps accredited investors invest in lower middle market private equity deal by deal, including businesses pursuing buy-and-build plans alongside independent sponsors. Participation depends on eligibility, available opportunities, and each offering’s terms.13
Research scope and methodology
CapitalPad Research compares private equity roll-up and buy-and-build statistics to examine how acquisition-led growth can create business and investment value. This report connects deal activity, historical performance, revenue growth, purchase multiples, financing, and named operating examples. CapitalPad produces the comparative analysis, explanatory frameworks, calculations, tables, and charts; underlying market observations and study results are attributed to their original providers.
| Publisher | CapitalPad Research. CapitalPad helps accredited investors invest in lower middle market private equity on a deal-by-deal basis, including buy-and-build opportunities.13 |
|---|---|
| Research type | Comparative review of market data, historical investment studies, sponsor disclosures, and operating frameworks, with a separately labeled hypothetical valuation example. |
| Principal sources | PitchBook via Cherry Bekaert and NEPC; BCG/HHL Leipzig; Bain; PwC using Gain.pro data; GF Data through ACG; sponsor and company disclosures. |
| Observation periods | Q2 and full-year 2025 for U.S. deal activity; 1998–2012 exits for BCG/HHL returns; 2010–2019 deal dates for Bain’s strategic-rationale comparison; PwC’s 2025 publication for European growth analysis; first three quarters of 2024 for GF Data financing and pricing. |
| Market focus | Private equity buy-and-build and roll-up investing, with emphasis on lower middle market companies. U.S., European, and company-specific observations retain their own geography. |
| Core measures | Acquisition counts, add-on transaction shares, average deal IRR, reported MOIC, median revenue CAGR, enterprise-value multiples, financing mix, and company development. |
| CapitalPad contribution | Cross-source comparisons, interpretation of the operating case, the 8.5-percentage-point historical IRR difference, a reproducible blended-price calculation, and exit-value sensitivity scenarios. |
| Main distinctions | Transactions differ from unique platforms; revenue growth differs from investment returns; enterprise value differs from equity proceeds; sample averages differ from forecasts. |
How the performance studies are used
BCG/HHL provides historical deal-level evidence. The 2016 report begins with 9,548 exited deals, uses 2,372 for its broader activity analysis, and narrows to 121 with sufficient data for return analysis. Of the 121, 48 involved add-ons; approximately 90% were European, and none were U.S. companies. All were exited between 1998 and 2012. The configuration results are subgroup averages within that return sample.2
Return measures remain separate. Bain’s reported MOIC comparison, BCG/HHL deal IRRs, PwC’s median revenue growth rates, and sponsor-disclosed outcomes answer different questions. None is presented as a net return forecast for a CapitalPad investor. The source studies are observational and do not establish that an acquisition count, platform size, or strategy label causes a particular outcome.3, 2, 4
Definitions vary. BCG/HHL includes buy-and-build investments with one or two add-ons. Bain’s 2024 article uses a definition involving at least four repeated add-ons. PwC distinguishes a staged buy-and-build approach from a more rapid roll-up. This article uses the terms broadly in its explanation while preserving source-specific populations in the data.2, 3, 4
How the other evidence is sourced
- Deal activity
- Cherry Bekaert and NEPC report PitchBook data. The quarterly U.S. transaction share and annual smaller bolt-on counts are kept separate. PwC’s European adoption measure counts assets that carried out acquisitions, not the number of add-on transactions.1, 5, 4
- Growth observations
- The revenue chart uses the no-add-on and more-than-five-add-on endpoints published by PwC. It does not imply organic growth or a matched comparison with the BCG/HHL return sample. The source’s middle buckets are not redrawn because their printed ranges overlap at three add-ons.4
- Pricing and financing
- GF Data’s figures are reported by its managing director in ACG’s publication. The financing comparison is all deals versus platform-only deals in the $1M–$10M enterprise-value band; it does not provide an isolated add-on financing average.6
- Company examples
- Apax, Latticework, Alpine, and EQT describe their own investments. Their disclosed operating results and transaction details illustrate how platforms developed. They are selected cases, not representative industry-return data.7, 8, 9, 10
- Execution and regulatory context
- The Opus Connect synergy-miss figure is an attributed estimate without a reproducible methodology in its public summary. The FTC/DOJ reference records the 2024 inquiry, not a statement about present reporting thresholds or the legality of a particular acquisition.11, 12
- CapitalPad information
- CapitalPad’s public materials support the description of its investor participation model and buy-and-build focus. They do not supply the independent market and performance statistics.13
How to reproduce the calculations
The historical IRR difference is 31.6% − 23.1% = 8.5 percentage points. The hypothetical blended purchase multiple is ($5M × 5.5 + $5M × 3.5) ÷ $10M = 4.5x. The four exit enterprise values equal $10M of EBITDA multiplied by 4.5x, 6.5x, 8.0x, and 10.0x. No leverage, fee, holding-period, or distribution assumptions are added to turn those enterprise values into investor returns.
Commercial interests remain relevant to interpretation. Advisers and sponsors publish research and case studies in markets they serve, and CapitalPad participates in lower middle market investing. Clear source attribution and scope allow readers to evaluate the evidence without relying on a claim of authority.
Editorial revision and selected source checks: . “2026” identifies this research edition; observation dates are stated throughout and do not constitute a full-year 2026 market dataset.
Cite this research
CapitalPad Research, “Private Equity Roll-Up Statistics: The Case for Buy-and-Build.” 2026 research edition; editorial revision September 13, 2026.
Reference CapitalPad Research for the comparative analysis, explanations, calculations, tables, and charts. Retain the underlying provider, period, and sample when quoting a reported statistic.
Disclosure: CapitalPad offers private equity co-investment opportunities to accredited investors. This article is educational and does not recommend any specific investment, sponsor, sector, security, or strategy. Private securities are speculative, illiquid, and may result in partial or total loss of capital. Historical market statistics, named-deal returns, academic findings, and example return math are not forecasts of future performance and should not be relied on as a promise of liquidity, return, or exit timing.
Sources & references
- PitchBook Q2 2025 U.S. PE data, reported by Cherry Bekaert, “Private Equity Mid-Year Trends in 2025.” Source
- BCG & HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management, “The Power of Buy and Build” (2016). Source (PDF)
- Bain & Company, “Building a Stronger Buy-and-Build,” Global Private Equity Report 2024. Source
- PwC, “Unlocking Value with Buy-and-Build Strategies in the DACH Private Equity Market” (March 2025). Gainpro data. Source (PDF)
- PitchBook bolt-on data, reported by NEPC, Quarterly Private Markets Report Q4 2025. Source
- GF Data, reported by Middle Market Growth (ACG), “Small Deals Big Factor in Middle-Market Private Equity in 2024” (January 2025). Source
- Apax Partners, “Apax VIII Sells Its Stake in AssuredPartners to GTCR” (2019). Source
- Latticework Capital Management, “Latticework Sells American Veterinary Group.” Source
- Alpine Investors / Business Wire, “$3.4 Billion Single-Asset Continuation Transaction” (October 2023). Source
- EQT Group, “How EQT Took Anticimex from Nordic Player to Global Pest Control Giant” (accessed September 13, 2026). Source
- Opus Connect, “Roll-Up or Roll-Over? A Seasoned Leader’s Insights” (May 27, 2025). Source
- Federal Trade Commission, “FTC and DOJ Seek Info on Serial Acquisitions, Roll-Up Strategies” (May 2024). Source
- CapitalPad, “Official Information About CapitalPad: Private Equity Co-Investment Group” (accessed September 13, 2026). Source
