Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Sector Outlook — September 2026

Read the report

SlidesScroll

1 of 21

←→Full screen

HEALTH CARE › PHARMACEUTICALS, BIOTECHNOLOGY AND LIFE SCIENCES › CONTRACT RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS (CRO)

Contract Research: Two Price Bands, One Sector Label

This report shows how the companies in this sector are valued on a forward revenue lens, what the transaction record contains, and where each group sits.

September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential

Market data as of 2026-09-28 · primary valuation basis EV / Revenue (CY2027E)

Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice

Sources & methodology

1

← Previous

1 / 21 · HEALTH CARE › PHARMACEUTICALS, BIOTECHNOLOGY AND LIFE SCIENCES › CONTRACT RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS (CRO)

Next →

What each page shows

The analyst’s walkthrough of the deck, page by page.

1. 01

   HEALTH CARE › PHARMACEUTICALS, BIOTECHNOLOGY AND LIFE SCIENCES › CONTRACT RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS (CRO)

   Cover page introducing the CRO sector outlook and its valuation basis.

   We present NeuraCap's Contract Research Organizations sector outlook, with market data as of September 28, 2026, built on an EV/Revenue (CY2027E) valuation basis. This framing sets up the finding that carries through the rest of the report: the sector prices as two distinct businesses, and knowing which one a company resembles is the first strategic question.

   Everything on this page

   HEALTH CARE › PHARMACEUTICALS, BIOTECHNOLOGY AND LIFE SCIENCES › CONTRACT RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS (CRO) Contract Research: Two Price Bands, One Sector Label This report shows how the companies in this sector are valued on a forward revenue lens, what the transaction record contains, and where each group sits. September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential Market data as of 2026-09-28 · primary valuation basis EV / Revenue (CY2027E) Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 1

2. 02
   CONTENTS

   What This Report Covers

   This page lists the report's five sections plus the appendix, in order.

   We've structured this report so the bottom line comes first — sections two through five build the evidence behind it, and the appendix carries the full comparable and transaction detail. If you only have time for one section, section one gives you the whole story.

   Everything on this page

   CONTENTS What This Report Covers 01 The Bottom Line Contract Research Organizations Split into Two Pricing Worlds 02 The Landscape Most of the Names Are Sponsor-Side; The Service Economics Sit in Two 03 Valuation & Situations The Forward Revenue Lens Puts Real Distance Between the Two Ends 04 Precedent Transactions Buyers Agreed to Pay up for Backlog, Capacity and Therapeutic Depth 05 Strategic Implications Revenue Quality Is What an Owner Can Move, and It Tracks with the Valuation Range 06 Appendix Comparables Detail, Methodology, Sources and Assumptions Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 2

3. 03
   01 · THE BOTTOM LINE

   Contract Research Organizations Price as Two Businesses: Service Capacity and Partnership Platforms

   This page summarizes the report's central finding: CROs price as two distinct business types on a forward revenue basis.

   Across the nine rated companies with a forward estimate, EV/Revenue for CY2027E ranges from 0.8x at the bottom to 11.1x at the top, with the sector median at 3.1x. Eight of the eleven companies in this set are sponsor-side platform businesses, and that group's median sits at 2.1x forward revenue. Precedent transactions disclosed between 2013 and 2023 show buyers paying 11.7x to 24.4x EBITDA for backlog, capacity and therapeutic depth. Put together, the public market and the transaction record point to the same lever — revenue quality — as what separates the top and bottom of this range, which is what the rest of this report unpacks.

   Everything on this page

   01 · THE BOTTOM LINE Contract Research Organizations Price as Two Businesses: Service Capacity and Partnership Platforms The full story on one page · figures on EV / Revenue (CY2027E), market data as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Primary valuation basis: EV / Revenue on CY2027E consensus (9 of 11 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). Qualitative characterisations are NeuraCap views. Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 3 1 The Distance Between the Two Price Bands Is Worth Managing To Across the 9 names with a forward estimate, the middle of the range sits at 3.1x forward revenue for CY2027E. The top band prices at 11.1x and the bottom band at 0.8x. Revenue is the lead measure here because forward profit estimates are reported for 3 of the 11 companies. 2 Most of the Set Is Sponsor-Side Platform Economics 8 of the 11 companies are classified as sponsor-side therapeutic drug developers, 73% of the set, and the middle of that group prices at 2.1x forward revenue. Only two names sit in research models and safety assessment, where billable capacity, utilisation and backlog conversion do the work. 3 Faster Growth Is Not Where the Higher Multiples Sit Today On the 9 names with a forward estimate, the 5 growing faster than 9% sit at 1.0x forward revenue and the 4 growing slower sit at 3.8x. A forward lens already credits the growth in the forecast, so the higher prices are sitting alongside established franchise and platform economics rather than the fastest top-line runners. 4 What Buyers Agreed to Pay for Whole Companies Is the Second Benchmark Across the 9 transactions in this record, announced profit multiples run from 11.7x to 24.4x EBITDA, with private-equity and strategic buyers at both ends. Diligence in this market centres on backlog quality: contracted versus awarded work, cancellation terms and conversion history. 3.1x Sector median EV/Revenue CY2027E consensus · EV/Revenue is the lens because only 3 of 11 names carry a meaningful forward EBITDA 11.1x Premium end EV/Revenue vs 0.8x at the discount end top quartile (n=2) against bottom quartile (n=3) on EV/Revenue — the spread the report explains 13 Transactions with disclosed terms 35 recorded in this tier · 1 told as case studies, the full list in the appendix

4. 04
   SECTION 02

   02

   Divider introducing the market map section covering three business groups across eleven companies.

   This section maps the eleven-company universe into three groups selling to different buyer types. Seeing where the service economics concentrate sets up the valuation comparisons that follow.

   Everything on this page

   SECTION 02 02 THE LANDSCAPE Most of the Names Are Sponsor-Side; The Service Economics Sit in Two Three groups, 11 companies, and different buyer groups behind each of them. 02 of 06 Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 4

5. 05
   02 · MARKET MAP

   Three Groups Under One Label, Selling to Different Buyer Groups

   This page groups the eleven approved companies into three business segments and shows each group's median forward multiple.

   We group the approved universe into three segments — sponsor-side platform businesses, research models and safety assessment, and manufacturing — because each sells into a different buyer group. Eight of the eleven companies sit in the sponsor-side platform group, with the remainder split between research/safety and manufacturing. The group medians differ meaningfully, which tells us the single 'CRO' label hides more than one economic model. That distinction is what determines which valuation comparisons are actually relevant to a given company.

   Everything on this page

   02 · MARKET MAP Three Groups Under One Label, Selling to Different Buyer Groups 11 approved companies grouped by business segment · median EV / Revenue (CY2027E) per group · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Segment grouping follows the platform's classification; group medians on rated names only. "Why it matters" lines are NeuraCap views. Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 5 ADJACENT: THERAPEUTIC DRUG DEVELOPERS (SPONSOR-SIDE) 8 cos median 2.1x AbCellera (ABCL) Fortrea Holdings (FTRE) OmniAb (OABI) Aclaris (ACRS) C4 Therapeutics (CCCC) Cellectis S.A. (CLLS) Champions Oncology (CSBR) MindWalk Holdings (HYFT) The largest group by count, priced at 2.1x forward revenue in the middle, where value is discussed in partnered programmes and downstream economics rather than billable hours. RESEARCH MODELS AND SAFETY ASSESSMENT 2 cos median 3.8x IQVIA Holdings (IQV) Charles River (CRL) Two names carrying the scaled service economics of this market: physical capacity, utilisation, backlog conversion and long-dated sponsor relationships. ADJACENT: SPECIALTY AND GENERIC DRUG MANUFACTURING 1 cos 0.6x · 1 rated Evotec SE (EVO) A single name, Evotec SE (EVO), at 0.6x forward revenue, where manufacturing economics sit alongside discovery service work.

6. 06
   02 · LANDSCAPE

   Platform Economics, Service Capacity and Manufacturing Sit Side by Side Here

   This page lays out what each segment does and why its economics differ, using segment medians on rated names.

   Platform economics, service capacity and manufacturing sit side by side in this universe, and each has a different revenue driver — participation in partnered programs, billable capacity utilization, or manufacturing output. The medians on rated names show these are not interchangeable multiples, and blending them into one sector-wide number would obscure the comparison a specific company needs. Company-level detail behind every median sits in the appendix. Knowing which segment a company belongs to is the starting point for any valuation conversation.

   Everything on this page

   02 · LANDSCAPE Platform Economics, Service Capacity and Manufacturing Sit Side by Side Here Segment view of the approved universe · EV / Revenue (CY2027E) medians on rated names · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. "What they do / why it matters" is a NeuraCap view. Full company-level detail in the appendix and companion tables. Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 6 Segment n Share of universe Median EV/Revenue Names to know What they do — and why it matters Adjacent: therapeutic drug developers (sponsor-side) 8 73% 2.1x AbCellera Biologics Inc. (ABCL) · Fortrea Holdings Inc. (FTRE) · +6 more Platform economics, sponsor-side. 8 of the 11 companies sit here, 73% of the set. Value in this group is discussed in terms of partnered-programme progression, milestone and royalty participation, and the funding environment behind emerging-biotech demand, rather than billable headcount and utilisation. Research models and safety assessment 2 18% 3.8x IQVIA Holdings Inc. (IQV) · Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. (CRL) Capacity, utilisation and backlog. Two names, 18% of the set: IQVIA Holdings Inc. (IQV) and Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. (CRL). Both carry the profitability of scaled service operations, at margins of 23% and 25% respectively, and both live on net new business awards, book-to-bill and backlog burn. Adjacent: specialty and generic drug manufacturing 1 9% 0.6x n=1 Evotec SE (EVO) One name, manufacturing-led. Evotec SE (EVO) is the single company classified here, priced at 0.6x forward revenue, at the bottom of this set's range. Its economics blend discovery service work with manufacturing capacity, and that mix is read differently from a pure services book.

7. 07
   SECTION 03

   03

   Divider introducing the public market valuation section, covering all eleven companies with nine carrying a forward estimate.

   This section puts the forward revenue lens to work across all eleven companies, nine of which carry a forward estimate. The distance this lens reveals between the top and bottom of the range is the core evidence for the rest of the report.

   Everything on this page

   SECTION 03 03 VALUATION & SITUATIONS The Forward Revenue Lens Puts Real Distance Between the Two Ends All 11 companies appear; 9 of them carry a forward estimate. 03 of 06 Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 7

8. 08
   03 · PUBLIC MARKET VALUATION

   Two Names Hold the Top of the Forward Revenue Range; Three Hold the Bottom

   This page ranks the nine rated companies by EV/Revenue (CY2027E) and marks the sector median.

   Among the nine rated companies, two hold the top of the forward revenue range and three hold the bottom, with the sector median at 3.1x. We use EV/Revenue as the primary lens because only three of the eleven companies carry a meaningful forward EBITDA estimate, so revenue is the measure that's actually available across the set. The tier zones split the rated set at its own quartiles, giving a like-for-like read rather than an arbitrary cut. Where a company sits in this range is the first data point any conversation about its valuation should start from.

   Everything on this page

   03 · PUBLIC MARKET VALUATION Two Names Hold the Top of the Forward Revenue Range; Three Hold the Bottom EV / Revenue (CY2027E) · all 9 rated companies, sorted descending · sector median 3.1x · EV/Revenue is the lens because only 3 of 11 names carry a meaningful forward EBITDA · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Primary valuation basis: EV / Revenue on CY2027E consensus (9 of 11 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). Tier zones are NeuraCap groupings cut at the rated set's quartiles; every multiple quoted on this page is a median on the same EV / Revenue (CY2027E) basis. Panel commentary is a NeuraCap view. Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 8 PREMIUM · median 11.1x CORE · median 3.2x DISCOUNT · median 0.8x Sector median 3.1x WHAT SEPARATES THE TWO ENDS The top band prices at 11.1x. The two names at the top of the forward revenue range for CY2027E sit there on a lens that already credits forecast growth. A price that survives that test points to something the market is treating as durable: partnership participation rather than project-by-project flow. The bottom band sits at 0.8x. Three names sit at the bottom of the same forward measure. In this set that band is occupied by companies with concentrated sponsor exposure, exposure to the emerging-biotech funding cycle and fixed capacity to fill — the features buyers test hardest in diligence. Two names carry no estimate. 9 of the 11 companies carry a forward estimate. AbCellera Biologics Inc. (ABCL) and Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. (ACRS) do not, so the range describes the market's view of 9 names rather than the full set of 11.

9. 09
   03 · VALUATION DRIVERS

   The Higher Multiples Sit with the Slower Growers in This Set

   This page splits the rated companies into growth and margin cohorts and compares their median multiples.

   Splitting the nine rated companies at the covered median for revenue growth, the five growing faster than 9% sit at 1.0x forward revenue while the four growing slower sit at 3.8x. That's an association we observe in this data, not a causal claim — a forward lens already credits expected growth, so the premium here appears to sit with established platform and franchise economics rather than the fastest top-line growth. Margin cohorts aren't shown separately because no rated companies had the required margin estimates. This pattern is a reason to look past growth rate alone when judging where a company should sit in this range.

   Everything on this page

   03 · VALUATION DRIVERS The Higher Multiples Sit with the Slower Growers in This Set Median EV / Revenue (CY2027E) by revenue-growth cohort and by EBITDA-margin cohort (each split at its covered median) · rated names with estimates · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Cohort medians on rated names with the required estimates (faster n=5; slower n=4; higher-margin n=0; lower-margin n=0). Driver readings are NeuraCap views on the supplied data — association, not causation. Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 9 EV/Revenue, median per cohort · growth split at 9% · EBITDA-margin split at n/a Above 9% Growth, the Set Prices at 1.0x Splitting the 9 names with a forward estimate at 9% revenue growth, the 5 faster names sit at 1.0x forward revenue and the 4 slower names sit at 3.8x. That is what this sample shows as of 2026-09-28; it is not evidence that slower growth is worth more. Backlog Conversion Is Where Awards Become Revenue Award growth and revenue growth run on different clocks here: net new business awards land quarters before they burn into revenue, and cancellations are a structural feature of the book. A growth rate on its own does not tell a buyer whether the backlog is converting. The Top Band Sits Alongside Partnered-Programme Economics The two names at the top of the forward range are platform businesses whose value is discussed in partnered programmes, milestones and downstream royalties. That is what the top band sits alongside in this set; the record shows the prices, not the reasoning behind them.

10. 10
    03 · SITUATION MAP

    Only 2 of the 9 Names with a Forward Estimate Price High and Grow Fast

    This page cuts the nine rated companies on multiple versus the sector median and growth versus the covered median.

    Only two of the nine names with a forward estimate price high and grow fast at the same time — the rest sit priced high with slower growth, or growing faster at a lower multiple. These are observations about where each name sits today, not recommendations to buy or sell any security. The quadrant a company occupies is a useful diagnostic for what the market is actually paying it to prove next.

    Everything on this page

    03 · SITUATION MAP Only 2 of the 9 Names with a Forward Estimate Price High and Grow Fast Cut on EV / Revenue vs the sector median (3.1x) (rows) and revenue growth vs the covered median (9%) (columns) · observations, not recommendations Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Situation boundaries are the cohort's own medians (Directional, NeuraCap view). This page characterises situations; it does not recommend buying or selling any security. Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 10 Priced High, Growing Fast Above-median multiple · above-median revenue growth 2 names OmniAb, Inc. (OABI) · MindWalk Holdings Corp. (HYFT) OmniAb, Inc. (OABI) at 15.1x and MindWalk Holdings Corp. (HYFT) sit above the middle of the set on both price and growth. The live question for an owner in this position is conversion: whether award and partnership momentum keeps turning into revenue at the same rate. Priced High, Growing Slowly Above-median multiple · below-median revenue growth 3 names IQVIA Holdings Inc. (IQV) · Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. (CRL) · C4 Therapeutics, Inc. (CCCC) IQVIA Holdings Inc. (IQV), Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. (CRL) and C4 Therapeutics, Inc. (CCCC) price above the middle while growing below it. In this set that position is associated with established franchises and long-dated books rather than near-term top-line speed. Growing Fast, Priced Low Below-median multiple · above-median revenue growth 3 names Evotec SE (EVO) · Cellectis S.A. (CLLS) · Champions Oncology, Inc. (CSBR) Evotec SE (EVO), Cellectis S.A. (CLLS) and Champions Oncology, Inc. (CSBR) grow faster than the middle of the set but price below it. Cellectis S.A. (CLLS) grows at 72% and still sits in the bottom band, which puts the durability and mix of that revenue ahead of its rate as the question. Below the Middle on Both Below-median multiple · below-median revenue growth 1 names Fortrea Holdings Inc. (FTRE) Fortrea Holdings Inc. (FTRE) is the single name below the middle on both measures, at 1.1x forward revenue. The operating focus in that position is the quality of the book: cancellation rates, award conversion and sponsor concentration.

11. 11
    03 · THE AGENDA

    Different Revenue Models Sit at Different Prices in the Transaction Record

    This page frames the valuation and transaction findings as questions an owner or acquirer should resolve.

    Different revenue models in this set sit at different prices in the transaction record, and that's a pattern worth working through deliberately rather than assuming one multiple applies across the board. These are NeuraCap's observations grounded in the cohort data shown in this section, not investment recommendations. For an owner or acquirer, the useful next step is matching a specific asset's revenue model to the comparable group it actually resembles before applying any multiple.

    Everything on this page

    03 · THE AGENDA Different Revenue Models Sit at Different Prices in the Transaction Record NeuraCap view · framed as the questions an owner or acquirer should resolve · observations, not recommendations Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. All content on this page is Directional — NeuraCap advisory judgment grounded in the cohort data shown earlier. It does not constitute investment advice. Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 11 Build the Backlog a Buyer Can Underwrite Value in scaled service economics is discussed in contracted versus awarded work, conversion history and cancellation terms. Concentrating commercial effort on longer-dated, preferred-provider work changes the shape of the book that buyers and public investors read. What changes the answer: A run of quarters where net new business awards convert into revenue on schedule. Choose How Much Platform Economics to Carry This set contains businesses paid for billable capacity and businesses paid for partnered-programme participation, and several carry both inside one P&L. Deciding which of the two the company is building shapes pricing, capital allocation and which buyer group engages. What changes the answer: Milestone and royalty income becoming a repeatable share of revenue rather than a lumpy line. Spread Sponsor Exposure Across the Two Demand Cycles Emerging-biotech demand moves with the funding environment; large-pharma demand moves with portfolio and patent timing. A book weighted to one of those cycles carries a different risk profile from one that holds both, and diligence tests that concentration directly. What changes the answer: A meaningful shift in the share of revenue coming from the top handful of sponsors. Settle Build Versus Buy on Capacity and Data Preclinical capacity, therapeutic-area depth and site and patient data assets are the features strategic acquirers in this record moved to add. Those same features can be built, and choosing between building and acquiring them is a capital allocation decision. What changes the answer: Utilisation running at the limits of current capacity.

12. 12
    SECTION 04

    04

    Divider introducing the precedent transactions section, covering nine announced deals between 2013 and 2023.

    This section reviews nine announced transactions from 2013 to 2023, with strategic and private-equity buyers on both sides. What buyers agreed to pay for backlog, capacity and therapeutic depth is the second valuation benchmark in this report.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 04 04 PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS Buyers Agreed to Pay up for Backlog, Capacity and Therapeutic Depth Nine announced transactions between 2013 and 2023, strategic and private-equity buyers on both sides. 04 of 06 Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 12

13. 13
    04 · DEAL CASE STUDIES

    Strategics and Private Equity Both Agreed to Pay up, 2013 to 2023

    This page walks through transactions with disclosed terms as case studies, with multiples on LTM financials at announcement.

    We work through the transactions with disclosed terms as case studies, using multiples on LTM financials at the time each deal was announced. Both strategic and private-equity buyers paid up across this record, and the case studies point to backlog, capacity and therapeutic depth as the recurring reasons why. These deal multiples sit on a different basis than the CY2027E public market multiples shown earlier, so we don't draw a direct spread between the two. The complete transaction list, including records with data-quality flags, sits in the appendix for anyone who wants to trace a specific deal.

    Everything on this page

    04 · DEAL CASE STUDIES Strategics and Private Equity Both Agreed to Pay up, 2013 to 2023 1 of 13 transactions with disclosed terms, told as case studies · multiples on LTM financials at announcement where disclosed · the complete list is in the appendix · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. 36 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; divestiture roles reassigned; duplicate precedent id); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 22 recorded transactions with neither a disclosed value nor a multiple are omitted from the precedent list and the case studies (kept in the companion workbook). Deal multiples are LTM at announcement (Definitive, from filings); they are not directly comparable to the CY2027E public basis and no spread is claimed. "Why the deal happened" is a NeuraCap read of the recorded evidence. Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 13 Nov-2023 $3.1B Light Curve Capital Holdings Pte. Ltd (subsidiary) acquires Alvotech Hannover GmbH EV / LTM revenue 50.9x EV / LTM EBITDA n/a WHY THE DEAL HAPPENED The buyer is a capital holding vehicle and the target is a manufacturing operation, which suggests an asset-and-capacity transaction rather than a services consolidation. What the transaction suggests is appetite for qualified production capability of a kind that takes years to build. HOW THE TARGET WAS VALUED The announced value is $3.1B and the record carries 50.9x revenue against it, with the filing's value unit unresolved, so the multiple should be read as indicative. It sits outside the profit multiples recorded for the clinical services transactions here, a reminder that a manufacturing asset and a services book are not benchmarked the same way.

14. 14
    SECTION 05

    05

    Divider introducing the strategic implications section for owners, buyers and boards.

    This section sets out what the valuation and transaction evidence points to for owners, buyers and boards. Revenue quality is the thread that connects both benchmarks, and it's the lever this data actually puts in an owner's hands.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 05 05 STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Revenue Quality Is What an Owner Can Move, and It Tracks with the Valuation Range What the evidence points to for owners, buyers and boards. 05 of 06 Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 14

15. 15
    05 · STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

    Revenue Quality Is the Lever This Data Puts in an Owner's Hands

    This page lays out the questions the data raises for owners, buyers and boards over the next twelve months.

    The evidence in this report points to revenue quality — contracted, longer-dated and partnered work — as the lever most associated with where a company sits in the valuation range. For owners, that means mix is the clearest lever available; for buyers, it means bridging a revenue-multiple market against a profit-multiple transaction record; for boards, it means backlog quality deserves the same scrutiny buyers apply in diligence. These are NeuraCap's directional views drawn from the analysis in this report, not recommendations. Working through these questions now shapes how a company reads against this peer set going forward.

    Everything on this page

    05 · STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Revenue Quality Is the Lever This Data Puts in an Owner's Hands NeuraCap view · the questions this data puts on the table for the next twelve months Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. This page is Directional — NeuraCap views drawn from the analysis in this report. Observations, not recommendations. Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 15 FOR OWNERS Mix Is the Lever with the Clearest Read In this set the higher forward prices sit with platform and established franchise economics, and the lower prices sit with names carrying funding-cycle exposure and fixed capacity. Shifting mix toward contracted, longer-dated and partnered revenue is an operating decision that changes how the business reads against these peers. FOR BUYERS The Two Benchmarks Are Priced on Different Measures Announced transactions in this record are discussed in profit multiples, while the trading set is read on forward revenue because forward profit estimates are reported for 3 of the 11 companies. Bridging the two means agreeing net revenue before pass-through and reimbursed costs, usually the first substantive negotiation in a process. FOR BOARDS Backlog Quality Is Associated with Where a Name Sits Across this set, the names at the top of the forward range are the ones with platform participation or long-dated sponsor relationships, and that position is associated with the durability of the book rather than the growth rate reported in any single year. Board attention on conversion, cancellation and sponsor concentration meets the same features buyers test.

16. 16
    SECTION 06

    06

    06.

    Section 06 of 06 — The Full Universe, Methodology and Sources. Comparables detail behind every figure in the body, the valuation basis, and where each underlying disclosure lives. Use this divider to reset the room before the section's pages; the progress dots show where the argument stands. 16

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 06 06 APPENDIX The Full Universe, Methodology and Sources Comparables detail behind every figure in the body, the valuation basis, and where each underlying disclosure lives. 06 of 06 Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 16

17. 17
    06 · PUBLIC COMPARABLES (1 OF 1)

    Public Comparables on EV / Revenue (CY2027E), Grouped by Valuation Tier

    This page lists the public comparables on EV/Revenue (CY2027E), grouped by valuation tier.

    This page lists all nine rated companies on EV/Revenue (CY2027E), shaded against the 3.1x sector median, with the two companies lacking an eligible multiple noted separately. Every ticker links back to its underlying source, and the companion workbook carries the complete field set. This is the reference page to return to when checking exactly where a specific company sits.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PUBLIC COMPARABLES (1 OF 1) Public Comparables on EV / Revenue (CY2027E), Grouped by Valuation Tier Teal shading marks a EV/Revenue above the sector median (3.1x); amber marks below · 9 rated companies; 2 not rated (no eligible EV/Revenue) · tickers link to the underlying source · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. All 9 rated rows are in this appendix and in the companion workbook, which carries the complete field set. Names without an eligible multiple are listed in the companion workbook. Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 17 Company Ticker Segment EV EV/Revenue (CY2027E) Rev growth EBITDA margin Rule of 40 PREMIUM — ≥4.3x · median 11.1x · 2 companies OmniAb, Inc. OABI Adjacent: therapeutic drug developers (sponsor-side) $657M 15.1x 24% n/a n/a C4 Therapeutics, Inc. CCCC Adjacent: therapeutic drug developers (sponsor-side) $147M 7.2x -20% n/a n/a CORE — 1.0x–4.3x · median 3.2x · 4 companies Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. CRL Research models and safety assessment $17.1B 4.3x 2% 25% n/a IQVIA Holdings Inc. IQV Research models and safety assessment $59.3B 3.2x 6% 23% 29 MindWalk Holdings Corp. HYFT Adjacent: therapeutic drug developers (sponsor-side) $53M 3.1x 27% n/a n/a Fortrea Holdings Inc. FTRE Adjacent: therapeutic drug developers (sponsor-side) $2.9B 1.1x 3% 8% 12 DISCOUNT — <1.0x · median 0.8x · 3 companies Champions Oncology, Inc. CSBR Adjacent: therapeutic drug developers (sponsor-side) $68M 1.0x 9% n/a n/a Cellectis S.A. CLLS Adjacent: therapeutic drug developers (sponsor-side) $72M 0.8x 72% n/a n/a Evotec SE EVO Adjacent: specialty and generic drug manufacturing $499M 0.6x 20% 20% 49

18. 18
    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (1 OF 2)

    All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First

    This page lists precedent transactions with disclosed terms, newest first, part one of two.

    This page lists the transactions with disclosed terms, newest first, with multiples on LTM financials at announcement where available. Deal values link back to the underlying filing for anyone who wants to verify a specific transaction. These multiples sit on a different basis than the CY2027E public market lens used earlier in this report, so no direct spread is claimed between the two.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (1 OF 2) All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First 13 transactions with disclosed terms in this tier (35 recorded) · multiples on LTM financials at announcement where disclosed · deal values link to the underlying filing · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. 36 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; divestiture roles reassigned; duplicate precedent id); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 22 recorded transactions with neither a disclosed value nor a multiple are omitted from the precedent list and the case studies (kept in the companion workbook). Deal multiples are LTM at announcement (Definitive, from filings); they are not directly comparable to the CY2027E public basis and no spread is claimed. Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 18 Date Transaction EV EV/LTM Rev EV/LTM EBITDA Why it matters Nov-2023 Light Curve Capital Holdings Pte. Ltd (subsidiary) → Alvotech Hannover GmbH $3.1B 50.9x n/a Announced November 2023 with a disclosed value of $3.1B and recorded at 50.9x revenue; the filing's value unit is unresolved, so read the multiple as indicative. The buyer is a capital holding vehicle and the target is a manufacturing operation. Apr-2021 Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. → PPD, Inc. n/a n/a 23.4x Announced April 2021 at 23.4x EBITDA, toward the top of the profit multiples in this record. A tools and diagnostics group adding full-service clinical development fits the cross-sell logic strategic buyers describe into an existing sponsor base. Feb-2021 ICON plc → PRA Health Sciences, Inc. n/a n/a 24.4x Announced February 2021 at 24.4x EBITDA. Two clinical development providers combining is a recurring structure in this record, adding therapeutic-area depth and geographic reach in a single step. Jul-2017 Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings → Chiltern International Group Limited n/a n/a 12.6x Announced July 2017 at 12.6x EBITDA, toward the lower end of the profit multiples recorded here. Laboratory groups appear twice in this record as buyers of clinical development capability. Jun-2017 Pamplona Capital Management → PAREXEL International Corporation n/a n/a 13.3x Announced June 2017 at 13.3x EBITDA. Sponsors in this market look at contracted backlog and recurring project flow, and assembling functional specialists into a broader platform is a familiar structure for them. Jun-2017 GTCR, LLC, The Carlyle Group L.P. → Albany Molecular Research, Inc. n/a n/a 13.6x Announced June 2017 at 13.6x EBITDA. A club transaction for a discovery and development chemistry business shows sponsor appetite reaching research capacity as well as clinical services. Jun-2016 Quintiles → IMS Health Holdings, Inc. n/a n/a 13.0x Announced June 2016 at 13.0x EBITDA. This is the combination in the record that pairs a health data business with clinical delivery capacity, the asset set strategic buyers say is hard to assemble quickly. Nov-2014 Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings → Covance, Inc. n/a n/a 13.3x Announced November 2014 at 13.3x EBITDA, the same level recorded three years later for PAREXEL International Corporation. Preclinical and safety capacity is hard to add quickly, and this record shows buyers acquiring it rather than building it. Jun-2013 KKR & Co. Inc. → PRA Health Sciences, Inc. n/a n/a 11.7x Announced June 2013 at 11.7x EBITDA, the lowest profit multiple among the 9 transactions in this record. The same target appears again in this record in 2021, that time with a strategic buyer.

19. 19
    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (2 OF 2)

    All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First

    This page continues the precedent transaction list with disclosed terms, newest first.

    This page continues the same list of disclosed transactions, ordered newest first, on the same LTM-at-announcement basis. Records with data-quality flags are shown as recorded in the filing rather than adjusted, and transactions without a disclosed value or multiple are kept in the companion workbook rather than this list. Together, these two pages are the complete record of disclosed-term transactions behind the case studies shown earlier.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (2 OF 2) All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First 13 transactions with disclosed terms in this tier (35 recorded) · multiples on LTM financials at announcement where disclosed · deal values link to the underlying filing · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. 36 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; divestiture roles reassigned; duplicate precedent id); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 22 recorded transactions with neither a disclosed value nor a multiple are omitted from the precedent list and the case studies (kept in the companion workbook). Deal multiples are LTM at announcement (Definitive, from filings); they are not directly comparable to the CY2027E public basis and no spread is claimed. Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 19 Date Transaction EV EV/LTM Rev EV/LTM EBITDA Why it matters Jun-2013 Kohlberg Kravis Roberts → PRA Health Sciences, Inc. n/a n/a 11.7x Jul-2007 Genstar Capital, LLC → PRA International n/a n/a 15.1x n/a n/a → Syneos Health, Inc. n/a 1.8x 14.6x Value shown as recorded in the filing; status defaulted announced. n/a n/a → InVentiv Health, Inc. n/a n/a 10.2x Value shown as recorded in the filing; status defaulted announced.

20. 20
    06 · METHODOLOGY

    Sources, Assumptions and Data Quality

    This page sets out the report's sources, valuation basis and what was excluded from the analysis.

    This report draws on market data and consensus estimates as of September 28, 2026, together with company disclosures filed with the SEC, with EV/Revenue on CY2027E consensus as the primary valuation basis. Multiples that fail the platform's plausibility checks are excluded rather than plotted, and every figure in this report links back to the record it was taken from. Where a figure has no link, this section names its source and the basis on which it was read. This transparency is what lets a reader trace any number in this report back to where it came from.

    Everything on this page

    06 · METHODOLOGY Sources, Assumptions and Data Quality How this report was built, what was excluded, and where every underlying disclosure lives · as of 2026-09-28 Every figure in this report links to the record it was taken from. Where a figure has no link, the appendix names its source and the basis on which it was read. Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice 20 VALUATION BASIS Primary valuation basis: EV / Revenue on CY2027E consensus (9 of 11 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). EV / Revenue on CY2027E is the lead convention: it is the sector-appropriate prior for Contract Research Organizations (CRO) and it clears the coverage gate with 11 of 11 companies (100%). EV / EBITDA, P / E are carried as a cross-check. A revenue lens is used rather than a profit multiple because forward EBITDA is reported for 3 of 11 companies. DATA QUALITY & EXCLUSIONS 37 records were excluded or quarantined by the platform's validation gates (unit errors, implausible ratios, ineligible securities and classification failures); the full ledger ships in the companion tables and never feeds a statistic in this report. DEFINITIVE VS DIRECTIONAL Definitive content is disclosed or consensus data passed through stated arithmetic. Directional content — tier boundaries, situation cuts, "why it matters" commentary, the agenda pages — is NeuraCap analyst judgment and is labeled as such where it appears. WHAT THIS REPORT IS NOT This report characterises a sector. It does not recommend buying, selling or holding any security, and no statement in it should be read as investment advice or a price target. WHERE THE DATA LIVES 481 registered source documents stand behind the figures in this report. Metric hyperlinks throughout the deck open the specific filing or data record; by publisher: sec.gov (480) · home.treasury.gov (1). The companion workbook beside this deck carries the complete source index.

21. 21

    In This Set the Top of the Forward Range Sits with Platform and Franchise Economics.

    This closing page restates the report's central finding: the top of the forward range sits with platform and franchise economics.

    In this set, the top of the forward range sits with platform and franchise economics rather than with the fastest revenue growth. The companion tables carry the full universe, the exclusion ledger and the complete source index for any figure a client wants to trace further.

    Everything on this page

    In This Set the Top of the Forward Range Sits with Platform and Franchise Economics. NeuraCap AI — Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Coverage September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 21

More coverage in Health Care

• Bi-Weekly Update · Sep 28, 2026Contract Research Organizations (CRO) Bi-Weekly Industry Events & M&A Update — September 14–28, 2026
• Bi-Weekly Update · Sep 28, 2026Medical Imaging Equipment Bi-Weekly Industry Events & M&A Update — September 14–28, 2026
• Sector Report · Sep 28, 2026Medical Imaging Equipment Sector Outlook — September 2026
• Bi-Weekly Update · Sep 28, 2026Neurology and CNS Therapeutics Bi-Weekly Industry Events & M&A Update — September 14–28, 2026