Gaming Equipment and Technology Sector Outlook — September 2026

Read the report

SlidesScroll

1 of 21

←→Full screen

CONSUMER DISCRETIONARY › CONSUMER SERVICES › GAMING EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

Gaming Technology: Premiums Span Different Models

The report shows how growth, margins, revenue mix and transaction benchmarks align with valuation across the sector.

September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential

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

Gaming Equipment and Technology Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice

Sources & methodology

1

← Previous

1 / 21 · CONSUMER DISCRETIONARY › CONSUMER SERVICES › GAMING EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

Next →

What each page shows

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

1. 01

   CONSUMER DISCRETIONARY › CONSUMER SERVICES › GAMING EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

   This cover introduces the Gaming Equipment and Technology sector outlook as of September 2026.

   We're opening with the full picture of Gaming Equipment and Technology as it stood in late September 2026, framed on a forward EV/EBITDA basis. This sets up the story we'll walk through together: where value concentrates across the sector, and why.

   Everything on this page

   CONSUMER DISCRETIONARY › CONSUMER SERVICES › GAMING EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY Gaming Technology: Premiums Span Different Models The report shows how growth, margins, revenue mix and transaction benchmarks align with valuation across the sector. September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential Market data as of 2026-09-28 · primary valuation basis EV / EBITDA (CY2027E) Gaming Equipment and Technology 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 the order the argument builds.

   We've structured this report so the bottom line comes first — read section one and you already have the full story. From there we build out the landscape, the valuation drivers, the precedent transactions and the strategic implications in that order. This lets us start with the conclusion and use the rest of the deck to show our work, so you can go as deep as you need without losing the thread.

   Everything on this page

   CONTENTS What This Report Covers 01 The Bottom Line Gaming Technology’s Premium Sits Alongside Growth, While Margins Span the Range 02 The Landscape Operations Dominate the Set, but Data and Platforms Broaden the Value Story 03 Valuation & Situations The Valuation Spread Leaves Room for Operating Choices to Matter 04 Precedent Transactions Precedent Transactions Put Strategic Fit Ahead of a Single Pricing Standard 05 Strategic Implications Revenue Quality, Capital Discipline and Strategic Fit Shape the Next Move 06 Appendix Comparables Detail, Methodology, Sources and Assumptions Gaming Equipment and Technology Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 2

3. 03
   01 · THE BOTTOM LINE

   Gaming Equipment and Technology Spans Operations and Adjacent Data and Platform Models

   This page summarizes the deck's central finding: the sector spans operating estates and adjacent data and platform models with a wide valuation range.

   We see a peer set that runs from a 10.8x premium end down to 3.4x at the discount end, on the same EV/EBITDA basis. Operations make up 71% of that set, while adjacent data and platform models make up the rest, so the sector's center of gravity is still capital-intensive estates. Growth alone doesn't explain the spread — names above the growth split trade at 5.2x against 5.1x below it — which tells us the premium is being paid for something beyond top-line growth. That's the question the rest of this report is built to answer.

   Everything on this page

   01 · THE BOTTOM LINE Gaming Equipment and Technology Spans Operations and Adjacent Data and Platform Models The full story on one page · figures on EV / EBITDA (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 / EBITDA on CY2027E consensus (7 of 7 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). Qualitative characterisations are NeuraCap views. Gaming Equipment and Technology Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 3 1 The Premium End Spans More than One Operating Model The two-name premium end stands at 10.8x, compared with 3.4x for the two-name discount end. That spread sits across businesses with different mixes of installed assets, digital exposure and recurring revenue. 2 The Growth Split Leaves Valuation Almost Level Among the 7 names with a forward estimate, the four names above the 7% growth split stand at 5.2x, while the three names below it stand at 5.1x. Growth is present at the premium end, but the split alone does not separate the set. 3 Operations Carry Most of the Peer Set Casino, pari-mutuel and historical racing operations represent 71% of the set, while adjacent models represent 29%. Owners therefore need to frame performance through the economics of their own installed base, contracts or platform position. 4 High Margins Do Not Sit in One Valuation Tier Three names pair below-middle valuation with above-middle margins, while three pair above-middle valuation with below-middle margins. The pattern is associated with differences beyond current profitability, including growth, revenue mix and capital intensity. 5.1x Sector median EV/EBITDA CY2027E consensus · 7 rated of 7 companies 10.8x Premium end EV/EBITDA vs 3.4x at the discount end top quartile (n=2) against bottom quartile (n=2) on EV/EBITDA — the spread the report explains 18 Transactions with disclosed terms 33 recorded in this tier · 1 told as case studies, the full list in the appendix

4. 04
   SECTION 02

   02

   This divider introduces section two on the sector's market map and landscape.

   We're moving into the landscape now — how operating estates, platforms and data businesses sit alongside each other in this peer set. This context frames every valuation comparison that follows.

   Everything on this page

   SECTION 02 02 THE LANDSCAPE Operations Dominate the Set, but Data and Platforms Broaden the Value Story The peer set combines capital-intensive estates with rights-backed and integrated technology models. 02 of 06 Gaming Equipment and Technology Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 4

5. 05
   02 · MARKET MAP

   The Money Sits Across Installed Operations, Platforms and Data

   This page maps the peer set's business segments and where value sits across the group.

   We group all seven approved companies by business segment — installed operations, platforms and data — to see where value actually sits. Operating estates account for 71% of the set, so scale still matters, but the adjacent platform and data models carry their own valuation logic. Placing them side by side lets us judge each name against the right peers rather than a single sector average, so the comparison stays fair and useful.

   Everything on this page

   02 · MARKET MAP The Money Sits Across Installed Operations, Platforms and Data 7 approved companies grouped by business segment · median EV / EBITDA (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. Gaming Equipment and Technology Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 5 ADJACENT: CASINO, PARI-MUTUEL AND HISTORICAL RACING OPERATIONS 5 cos median 5.1x Churchill Downs (CHDN) Brightstar Lottery (BRSL) Rush Street (RSI) Accel (ACEL) Inspired (INSE) The five-name group anchors the set through route operations, gaming estates and regulated operating exposure. ADJACENT MODELS 2 cos median 5.2x Sportradar Group (SRAD) Genius Sports (GENI) The two-name group adds platform, official data, odds and integrity economics to the sector map.

6. 06
   02 · LANDSCAPE

   Operating Estates Set the Scale, While Adjacent Models Expand the Strategic Perimeter

   This page contrasts the scale of operating estates against the strategic reach of adjacent models.

   Operating estates set the scale of this sector, but the platform and data models extend where the strategic perimeter can go. Because 71% of the set sits in operations and 29% in adjacent models, owners in either camp need to understand how the other side competes for capital and strategic attention. This full picture, including company-level detail, sits in the appendix so you can trace every name back to its segment.

   Everything on this page

   02 · LANDSCAPE Operating Estates Set the Scale, While Adjacent Models Expand the Strategic Perimeter Segment view of the approved universe · EV / EBITDA (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. Gaming Equipment and Technology Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 6 Segment n Share of universe Median EV/EBITDA Names to know What they do — and why it matters Adjacent: casino, pari-mutuel and historical racing operations 5 71% 5.1x Churchill Downs Incorporated (CHDN) · Brightstar Lottery (BRSL) · +3 more Operations anchor the set. This five-name group represents 71% of the peer set and carries installed-base, location, concession and regulatory economics. Adjacent models 2 29% 5.2x Sportradar Group AG (SRAD) · Genius Sports Limited (GENI) Platforms and data broaden. This two-name group represents 29% of the peer set and brings platform integration, official data, odds and integrity services into the valuation discussion.

7. 07
   SECTION 03

   03

   This divider introduces section three on public market valuation and the drivers behind it.

   We now turn to valuation itself — where the multiples sit today and what separates the premium end from the discount end. This section sets up the situation map and the operating agenda that follow.

   Everything on this page

   SECTION 03 03 VALUATION & SITUATIONS The Valuation Spread Leaves Room for Operating Choices to Matter The 7 names with a forward estimate span distinct models, margins and growth profiles. 03 of 06 Gaming Equipment and Technology Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 7

8. 08
   03 · PUBLIC MARKET VALUATION

   The Premium End Holds a Wide Valuation Lead Despite Mixed Operating Profiles

   This page ranks all seven rated companies by EV/EBITDA (CY2027E) against the sector median.

   Sorted from highest to lowest, the rated set spans a wide range around the 5.1x sector median, with the premium end holding a clear lead. That lead persists even though operating profiles across the group are mixed, which tells us the market is pricing something structural rather than a single common driver. For owners, where you sit in that ranking is the first data point in any conversation about capital allocation or strategic options.

   Everything on this page

   03 · PUBLIC MARKET VALUATION The Premium End Holds a Wide Valuation Lead Despite Mixed Operating Profiles EV / EBITDA (CY2027E) · all 7 rated companies, sorted descending · sector median 5.1x · 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 / EBITDA on CY2027E consensus (7 of 7 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 / EBITDA (CY2027E) basis. Panel commentary is a NeuraCap view. Gaming Equipment and Technology Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 8 PREMIUM · median 10.8x CORE · median 5.1x DISCOUNT · median 3.4x Sector median 5.1x WHAT SEPARATES THE TWO ENDS The premium spans models. The two-name premium end carries a 10.8x forward EV / EBITDA multiple across digital wagering and regulated operations. The discount spans profiles. The two-name discount end stands at 3.4x despite meaningful differences in growth, margins and operating model. Durability remains the test. Because the multiple already credits forecast EBITDA, the remaining spread is associated with how the market views revenue durability, capital needs and execution risk.

9. 09
   03 · VALUATION DRIVERS

   Profitability Separates the Two Ends: Names Above the 32% Margin Line Carry 4.2x Against 6.8x Below It

   This page splits the rated set by growth and by margin to see which cohort commands the higher multiple.

   When we cut the set by growth, the faster-growing names trade at 5.2x against 5.1x for the slower group — essentially flat. Margin tells a different story: names above the 32% margin line carry 4.2x, while those below it carry 6.8x, the reverse of what many would expect. That pattern is an association in the data, not a causal claim, and it means margin alone won't explain where a name sits in this market — so the drivers worth investigating go beyond current profitability.

   Everything on this page

   03 · VALUATION DRIVERS Profitability Separates the Two Ends: Names Above the 32% Margin Line Carry 4.2x Against 6.8x Below It Median EV / EBITDA (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=4; slower n=3; higher-margin n=4; lower-margin n=3). Driver readings are NeuraCap views on the supplied data — association, not causation. Gaming Equipment and Technology Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 9 EV/EBITDA, median per cohort · growth split at 7% · EBITDA-margin split at 32% The Growth Split Produces Little Separation Among the 7 names with a forward estimate, the four names above 7% growth stand at 5.2x, against 5.1x for the three names below it. Profitability Appears Across Valuation Tiers The situation map places high-margin names both above and below the middle of the valuation range, so current profitability does not isolate the premium group. Business-Model Economics Remain Relevant Installed-base capex, participation revenue, contract duration and rights costs differ across the set and shape how comparable EBITDA may be viewed.

10. 10
    03 · SITUATION MAP

    Plotting Valuation Against Margin Sorts the Set into Three Groups of Names

    This page plots valuation against margin to sort the rated set into three groups.

    Cutting the set on the 5.1x sector median and the 32% margin median sorts every rated name into one of three situations. This is a map of where each business sits today, not a recommendation to buy or sell any of them. For owners, seeing which quadrant you're in is the starting point for deciding what the market is actually rewarding in this sector.

    Everything on this page

    03 · SITUATION MAP Plotting Valuation Against Margin Sorts the Set into Three Groups of Names Cut on EV / EBITDA vs the sector median (5.1x) (rows) and EBITDA margin vs the covered median (32%) (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. Gaming Equipment and Technology Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 10 Premium Valuation, Higher Margin Above-median multiple · above-median EBITDA margin 1 names Churchill Downs Incorporated (CHDN) One name sits above the middle on both measures: Churchill Downs Incorporated (CHDN). This position combines operating profitability with a higher forward valuation. Premium Valuation, Lower Margin Above-median multiple · below-median EBITDA margin 3 names Rush Street Interactive, Inc. (RSI) · Sportradar Group AG (SRAD) · Accel Entertainment, Inc. (ACEL) Three names sit above the middle on valuation and below it on margin: Rush Street Interactive, Inc. (RSI), Sportradar Group AG (SRAD) and Accel Entertainment, Inc. (ACEL). Their position is associated with factors beyond current margin, including growth and business-model expectations. Lower Valuation, Higher Margin Below-median multiple · above-median EBITDA margin 3 names Brightstar Lottery (BRSL) · Genius Sports Limited (GENI) · Inspired Entertainment, Inc. (INSE) Three names sit below the middle on valuation and above it on margin: Brightstar Lottery (BRSL), Genius Sports Limited (GENI) and Inspired Entertainment, Inc. (INSE). Their margins reach or exceed 32%, but that profitability does not coincide with higher valuation in this sample. Lower Valuation, Lower Margin Below-median multiple · below-median EBITDA margin 0 names No rated names sit in this cell as of the analysis date.

11. 11
    03 · THE AGENDA

    Operating Choices Should Reinforce Revenue Quality and Capital Returns

    This page frames the operating questions an owner or acquirer should resolve given the valuation pattern.

    Given a valuation spread that isn't fully explained by growth or margin, we think the operating agenda has to focus on revenue quality and capital returns. These are framed as questions to resolve, not conclusions to act on immediately. Working through them systematically is how an owner turns this analysis into a specific set of priorities for the next planning cycle.

    Everything on this page

    03 · THE AGENDA Operating Choices Should Reinforce Revenue Quality and Capital Returns 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. Gaming Equipment and Technology Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 11 Shift the Mix Toward Recurring Economics Participation, platform and contracted revenue can reduce dependence on product-sale cycles when the underlying contracts preserve attractive economics. What changes the answer: The answer changes when contract duration, renewal exposure or revenue-share terms weaken the quality of recurrence. Test Installed-Base Returns After Capex Placement growth is more valuable when win per unit per day and contract tenure support the capital required to maintain and refresh the estate. What changes the answer: The answer changes when maintenance and growth capex consume the cash benefit of additional placements. Choose Build Versus Buy by Capability Content, data rights, platform layers and jurisdictional licences carry different development timelines and certification demands. What changes the answer: The answer changes when internal development can reach market before the relevant concession, rebid or launch window. Benchmark Strategic Fit Before Headline Pricing Announced transactions show a wide range of structures and valuation measures. Owners can compare what buyers agreed to pay with the target’s capability, revenue model and regulatory footprint. What changes the answer: The answer changes when the relevant precedent has a materially different mix of rights costs, capex or contracted revenue.

12. 12
    SECTION 04

    04

    This divider introduces section four on precedent transactions.

    Next we look at how the market has actually paid for capability in this sector, through announced deals. The case studies and full list that follow show several distinct strategic routes.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 04 04 PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS Precedent Transactions Put Strategic Fit Ahead of a Single Pricing Standard Announced combinations span equipment, platforms, content and interactive capabilities. 04 of 06 Gaming Equipment and Technology Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 12

13. 13
    04 · DEAL CASE STUDIES

    Announced Transactions Span Several Strategic Routes to Capability

    This page walks through a case study drawn from the precedent transactions with disclosed terms.

    We've picked one transaction from the disclosed-terms list to illustrate how a deal's strategic logic and pricing worked in practice; the complete set sits in the appendix. These multiples are calculated on LTM financials at announcement, so they sit on a different basis than the forward public multiples elsewhere in this report and shouldn't be read as a direct spread. What the case studies show consistently is that strategic fit, not a single pricing standard, drove these deals — which is the lens we'd apply to any transaction in this space.

    Everything on this page

    04 · DEAL CASE STUDIES Announced Transactions Span Several Strategic Routes to Capability 1 of 18 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. 24 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. 15 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. Gaming Equipment and Technology Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 13 Feb-2022 $19M Mer Telemanagement Solutions Ltd. Mer Telemanagement Solutions Ltd. and SharpLink, Inc. Pair Strategic Fit With High Revenue Pricing EV / LTM revenue 10.3x EV / LTM EBITDA n/a WHY THE DEAL HAPPENED The announced combination suggests a strategic fit between Mer Telemanagement Solutions Ltd. and SharpLink, Inc. The transaction points to a route for adding gaming technology exposure through acquisition. HOW THE TARGET WAS VALUED The filing records $19M and 10.3x EV / Revenue. The multiple should be read as revenue pricing rather than against the sector’s EBITDA-led public-company lens.

14. 14
    SECTION 05

    05

    This divider introduces section five on strategic implications.

    We close the analysis by turning the data into a set of questions for owners, operators and boards. The next page frames what this means for the year ahead.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 05 05 STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Revenue Quality, Capital Discipline and Strategic Fit Shape the Next Move Owners can test where operating investment is most likely to strengthen their market position. 05 of 06 Gaming Equipment and Technology Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 14

15. 15
    05 · STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

    Strengthen the Economics Buyers and Public Markets Can See in Operations

    This page sets out the strategic questions this data raises for owners, operators and boards over the next twelve months.

    For owners, protecting the quality of recurring revenue is the first lever, since contract length and renewal history shape how durable that revenue really is. For operators, capital intensity has to earn its place against unit performance and the length of the underlying placement or concession. For boards, build-versus-buy choices matter most where licences, data rights or platform integration would take real time to recreate — so this is where near-term capital allocation decisions should start.

    Everything on this page

    05 · STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Strengthen the Economics Buyers and Public Markets Can See in Operations 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. Gaming Equipment and Technology Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 15 FOR OWNERS Protect the Quality of Recurring Revenue Contract length, renewal history, customer concentration and revenue-share mechanics shape the durability of participation and platform economics. FOR OPERATORS Make Capital Intensity Earn Its Place Installed-base expansion should be tested against unit performance, refresh needs and the length of the underlying placement or concession. FOR BOARDS Match Investment to Strategic Bottlenecks Build-versus-buy choices are most consequential where licences, official data, content libraries or platform integration would take time to recreate.

16. 16
    SECTION 06

    06

    This divider introduces section six, the full comparables universe, methodology and sources.

    The final section carries the detail behind every figure in this report — the full company list, the transaction ledger and how each was built. It's the reference section for anything you want to verify against the earlier pages.

    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 Gaming Equipment and Technology Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 16

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

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

    This page lists all seven rated companies on EV/EBITDA (CY2027E), grouped by valuation tier.

    Every rated company in this analysis appears here, grouped by whether it sits above or below the 5.1x sector median. This is the full comparable set behind every chart earlier in the deck. It sits alongside the companion workbook, which carries the complete field set for any name.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PUBLIC COMPARABLES (1 OF 1) Public Comparables on EV / EBITDA (CY2027E), Grouped by Valuation Tier Teal shading marks a EV/EBITDA above the sector median (5.1x); amber marks below · 7 rated companies · 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 7 rated rows are in this appendix and in the companion workbook, which carries the complete field set. Gaming Equipment and Technology Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 17 Company Ticker Segment EV EV/EBITDA (CY2027E) Rev growth EBITDA margin Rule of 40 PREMIUM — ≥7.3x · median 10.8x · 2 companies Rush Street Interactive, Inc. RSI Adjacent: casino, pari-mutuel and historical racing… $4.4B 13.8x 16% 17% 33 Churchill Downs Incorporated CHDN Adjacent: casino, pari-mutuel and historical racing… $10.1B 7.8x 3% 41% 44 CORE — 4.2x–7.3x · median 5.1x · 3 companies Sportradar Group AG SRAD Player account management and gaming platform software $3.4B 6.8x 12% 26% 38 Accel Entertainment, Inc. ACEL Adjacent: casino, pari-mutuel and historical racing… $1.2B 5.1x 4% 16% 20 Brightstar Lottery BRSL Adjacent: casino, pari-mutuel and historical racing… $5.9B 4.9x 4% 47% 51 DISCOUNT — <4.2x · median 3.4x · 2 companies Genius Sports Limited GENI Official sports data, odds feeds and integrity services $1.5B 3.6x 28% 32% 59 Inspired Entertainment, Inc. INSE Adjacent: casino, pari-mutuel and historical racing… $416M 3.2x 7% 48% 54

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 is the first half of the 18 disclosed-terms transactions behind the case studies shown earlier, out of 33 recorded overall. Multiples here are LTM at announcement, not on the same basis as the forward public multiples used elsewhere, so no direct spread should be drawn between the two. The remaining transactions without disclosed value or multiple sit in the companion workbook rather than in this list.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (1 OF 2) All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First 18 transactions with disclosed terms in this tier (33 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. 24 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. 15 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. Gaming Equipment and Technology Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 18 Date Transaction EV EV/LTM Rev EV/LTM EBITDA Why it matters Feb-2024 International Game Technology PLC → Everi Holdings Inc. n/a n/a 6.0x The announced combination of International Game Technology PLC and Everi Holdings Inc. carries a 6.0x EV / EBITDA multiple. The pricing sits alongside a strategic combination of established gaming businesses. Jul-2023 Better Collective A/S → Playmaker HQ n/a 5.4x n/a Better Collective A/S announced the acquisition of Playmaker HQ at 5.4x EV / Revenue. The transaction suggests a route to broaden interactive audience and platform exposure. May-2023 Aristocrat Leisure Limited → NeoGames S.A. n/a 5.9x n/a Aristocrat Leisure Limited announced the acquisition of NeoGames S.A. at 5.9x EV / Revenue. The combination suggests strategic value in adding digital gaming capability to a diversified supplier. Apr-2023 Everi Holdings Inc. → VGKS LLC (Video King) n/a 2.4x n/a Everi Holdings Inc. announced the acquisition of VGKS LLC (Video King) at 2.4x EV / Revenue. The transaction suggests a direct route to add complementary gaming equipment capability. Mar-2022 Boyd Interactive Gaming LLC → Pala Interactive LLC n/a 6.0x n/a Boyd Interactive Gaming LLC announced the acquisition of Pala Interactive LLC at 6.0x EV / Revenue. The combination suggests interest in bringing interactive technology closer to an operator platform. Feb-2022 Mer Telemanagement Solutions Ltd. → SharpLink, Inc. $19M 10.3x n/a Mer Telemanagement Solutions Ltd. announced a transaction involving SharpLink, Inc. The recorded revenue multiple places the deal toward the upper end of the disclosed transaction observations. Oct-2021 Kindred Group plc → Relax Gaming Limited n/a 9.3x 23.3x Kindred Group plc announced the acquisition of Relax Gaming Limited at 9.3x EV / Revenue and 23.3x EV / EBITDA. The combination suggests strategic value in content and platform capability. Sep-2021 HLD Associés → SharpLink, Inc. n/a 1.5x 10.7x HLD Associés announced a transaction involving SharpLink, Inc. at 1.5x EV / Revenue and 10.7x EV / EBITDA. The two measures show why revenue and earnings benchmarks need to be read together. Feb-2016 Novomatic → Ainsworth n/a n/a 10.3x Novomatic announced a transaction involving Ainsworth at 10.3x EV / EBITDA. The combination suggests strategic fit between established gaming equipment businesses.

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

    All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First

    This page continues the list of precedent transactions with disclosed terms, newest first, part two of two.

    This is the second half of the same 18-transaction list, continuing newest-first from the previous page. The same basis applies: multiples are LTM at announcement and are not directly comparable to the forward public multiples used elsewhere in this report. Together, both pages give the complete disclosed-terms record behind the deal analysis.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (2 OF 2) All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First 18 transactions with disclosed terms in this tier (33 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. 24 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. 15 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. Gaming Equipment and Technology Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 19 Date Transaction EV EV/LTM Rev EV/LTM EBITDA Why it matters Aug-2014 Scientific Games → Bally n/a 12.1x 12.1x Jul-2014 GTECH → International Game Technology n/a 8.6x n/a Jul-2014 Aristocrat Leisure → Video Gaming Technologies n/a 8.2x n/a Jul-2013 Bally Technologies → SHFL Entertainment n/a 14.3x n/a Jan-2013 Scientific Games → WMS Industries n/a 6.2x n/a Jan-2006 Scientific Games → Global Draw n/a 5.4x n/a Jan-2006 Lottomatica Group → GTECH Holdings Corporation n/a 9.3x n/a Dec-2004 GTECH Holdings Corporation → Atronic Americas n/a 8.0x n/a Jul-2001 International Game Technology → Anchor Gaming n/a 7.9x n/a

20. 20
    06 · METHODOLOGY

    Sources, Assumptions and Data Quality

    This page explains the report's sources, valuation assumptions and data-quality treatment.

    Every figure in this report is built on the same forward EV/EBITDA basis and the same as-of date, drawn from consensus estimates and company disclosures. Where a number is excluded, this page and the appendix explain why, so nothing in the report is left unexplained. That consistency is what lets these figures be used with confidence in your own analysis.

    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. Gaming Equipment and Technology Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice 20 VALUATION BASIS Primary valuation basis: EV / EBITDA on CY2027E consensus (7 of 7 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). EV / EBITDA on CY2027E is the lead convention: it is the sector-appropriate prior for Gaming Equipment and Technology and it clears the coverage gate with 7 of 7 companies (100%). EV / Revenue, P / E are carried as a cross-check. The set earns: 7 of the 7 companies with a reported forward EBITDA carry a meaningful one, so the profit multiple leads and a revenue multiple would understate what the market is pricing. DATA QUALITY & EXCLUSIONS 4 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 355 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 (354) · home.treasury.gov (1). The companion workbook beside this deck carries the complete source index.

21. 21

    The 7 Names with a Forward Estimate Show a Wide Range and Mixed Operating Profiles.

    This closing page restates that the seven rated names show a wide range and mixed operating profiles.

    We end where we started: the seven names with a forward estimate span a wide valuation range and genuinely different operating profiles. That range is the clearest evidence that this sector rewards more than one business model, provided the underlying economics hold up. The companion tables carry the full universe and source index, so every figure here can be traced back to its origin.

    Everything on this page

    The 7 Names with a Forward Estimate Show a Wide Range and Mixed Operating Profiles. NeuraCap AI — Gaming Equipment and Technology Coverage September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential Gaming Equipment and Technology Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 21

More coverage in Consumer Discretionary

• Bi-Weekly Update · Sep 28, 2026Gaming Equipment and Technology Bi-Weekly Industry Events & M&A Update — September 14–28, 2026
• Sector Report · Sep 28, 2026Leisure Facilities and Recreation Sector Outlook — September 2026
• Bi-Weekly Update · Sep 28, 2026Leisure Facilities and Recreation Bi-Weekly Industry Events & M&A Update — September 14–28, 2026
• Sector Report · Sep 28, 2026Luxury Goods and Jewelry Sector Outlook — September 2026