Testing, Inspection and Certification Sector Outlook — September 2026

Read the report

SlidesScroll

1 of 20

←→Full screen

INDUSTRIALS › COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES › TESTING, INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION

Testing and Inspection: Two Halves, Two Price Levels

Where the premium sits across eight testing, inspection and certification companies, how the two halves of the set are valued, and what the recorded transactions show.

September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential

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

Testing, Inspection and Certification Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice

Sources & methodology

1

← Previous

1 / 20 · INDUSTRIALS › COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES › TESTING, INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION

Next →

What each page shows

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

1. 01

   INDUSTRIALS › COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES › TESTING, INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION

   Cover slide introducing the September 2026 testing, inspection and certification sector outlook.

   This report examines the testing, inspection and certification sector as of September 28, 2026, using EV/EBITDA on CY2027E consensus as the primary lens. What follows shows where the premium sits across the sector's two halves and what recent transactions reveal about deal pricing.

   Everything on this page

   INDUSTRIALS › COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES › TESTING, INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION Testing and Inspection: Two Halves, Two Price Levels Where the premium sits across eight testing, inspection and certification companies, how the two halves of the set are valued, and what the recorded transactions show. September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential Market data as of 2026-09-28 · primary valuation basis EV / EBITDA (CY2027E) Testing, Inspection and Certification Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 1

2. 02
   CONTENTS

   What This Report Covers

   Lists the report's five sections plus appendix.

   We start with the bottom line so a reader who only has a few minutes still leaves with the full story. From there we move through the market landscape, valuation and situations, precedent transactions, and strategic implications. Each section builds on the figures from the prior one, so the argument holds together end to end.

   Everything on this page

   CONTENTS What This Report Covers 01 The Bottom Line The Sector Prices in Two Halves, and the Ends Sort Cleanly 02 The Landscape Half the Set Sells Accredited Inspection Work, Half Sells Something Next to It 03 Valuation & Situations Where Each Name Sits in the Forward Range 04 Precedent Transactions What Buyers Agreed to Pay for Testing and Inspection Assets 05 Strategic Implications What This Means for the Company You Run 06 Appendix Comparables Detail, Methodology, Sources and Assumptions Testing, Inspection and Certification Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 2

3. 03
   01 · THE BOTTOM LINE

   Testing, Inspection and Certification Splits into Two Halves — Outsourced Inspection and Adjacent Models

   Summarizes the report's central finding that the sector splits into two valuation halves.

   We find that testing, inspection and certification splits into two halves priced at different levels: outsourced inspection and verification work, and a set of adjacent models. The outsourced inspection half trades at 13.7x CY2027E EBITDA versus 9.0x for the adjacent half, a gap that holds up even after accounting for forward growth. That persistence tells us the market is pricing durability of mandated, recurring scope rather than one-off volume. For any owner or acquirer in this space, knowing which half your revenue mix places you in is the first strategic question.

   Everything on this page

   01 · THE BOTTOM LINE Testing, Inspection and Certification Splits into Two Halves — Outsourced Inspection and Adjacent 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 8 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). Qualitative characterisations are NeuraCap views. Testing, Inspection and Certification Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 3 1 Two Halves of the Sector Sit at Two Price Levels Outsourced inspection and verification services accounts for 4 of the 8 companies; the 3 of those with a forward estimate sit at 13.7x on CY2027E EBITDA. The adjacent models half, also 4 companies and all 4 carrying a forward estimate, sits at 9.0x. 2 The Top of the Range Holds Its Premium Through a Forward Lens The two names at the top of the range sit at 15.0x and the two at the bottom at 7.2x. A CY2027E multiple already credits forecast growth, so a premium that survives that lens points to earnings buyers expect to still be there in the out years. 3 Above-Middle Margins and Above-Middle Multiples Sit Together in Three Names Three of the 7 names with a forward estimate sit above both the 9.7x middle of the range and the 25% margin mark: UL Solutions Inc. (ULS), Pearson plc (PSO) and Sotera Health Company (SHC). Our judgment, not something this screen measures: that pairing usually rests on mandated, recurring scope rather than on one-off volume. 4 What Buyers Agreed to Pay Sits Around the Middle of the Range Of the 6 recorded transactions, four carry a disclosed EBITDA multiple, spanning 6.7x to 12.2x. In the most recent, H.I.G. Capital agreed to acquire Mistras Group, Inc. at a recorded enterprise value of $848M. 9.7x Sector median EV/EBITDA CY2027E consensus · 7 rated of 8 companies 15.0x Premium end EV/EBITDA vs 7.2x at the discount end top quartile (n=2) against bottom quartile (n=2) on EV/EBITDA — the spread the report explains 6 Transactions with disclosed terms 17 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.

   This section maps who sits in each half of the sector and how each half is valued. We use it to reset the room before walking through the group-level figures.

   Everything on this page

   SECTION 02 02 THE LANDSCAPE Half the Set Sells Accredited Inspection Work, Half Sells Something Next to It Who is in each half, and how the two halves are valued. 02 of 06 Testing, Inspection and Certification Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 4

5. 05
   02 · MARKET MAP

   Half the Set Is Accredited Inspection Work, and That Half Holds the Top of the Range

   Groups the eight companies by business segment and shows each group's median EV/EBITDA (CY2027E).

   Half of the eight companies in this set sell outsourced inspection and verification services, and that half holds the top of the valuation range. Grouping by business segment shows the median multiple for accredited inspection work sitting above the adjacent-models group. This is a NeuraCap grouping view, not a market-wide classification, but it lines up with how buyers have segmented the space in recorded transactions. The practical takeaway: segment identity, not company size, is what the market seems to price first.

   Everything on this page

   02 · MARKET MAP Half the Set Is Accredited Inspection Work, and That Half Holds the Top of the Range 8 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. Testing, Inspection and Certification Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 5 OUTSOURCED INSPECTION AND VERIFICATION SERVICES 4 cos median 13.7x UL Solutions (ULS) TIC Solutions (TIC) Transcat (TRNS) Team (TISI) Accredited, repeat conformity assessment work sold as a service — the half of the set that holds both names at the top of the range. ADJACENT MODELS 4 cos median 9.0x Pearson (PSO) Sotera Health (SHC) Crane NXT (CXT) AudioEye (AEYE) Equipment, regulated laboratory capacity, assessment content and compliance platforms sold alongside accredited inspection work rather than as it.

6. 06
   02 · LANDSCAPE

   Accredited Inspection Work Prices Above the Adjacent Half of the Set

   Compares the accredited inspection segment against the adjacent-models segment on EV/EBITDA (CY2027E) medians.

   Across the rated universe, accredited inspection work prices above the adjacent half of the set on a CY2027E EV/EBITDA basis. We read this as a scope-quality signal: mandated, repeating inspection work commands a premium versus product-, content- or software-adjacent models. Because the split holds across the whole rated set, we treat it as descriptive of the sector rather than a one-company effect. Where a business sits in this map is a useful diagnostic before any capital-allocation conversation.

   Everything on this page

   02 · LANDSCAPE Accredited Inspection Work Prices Above the Adjacent Half of the Set 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. Testing, Inspection and Certification 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 Outsourced inspection and verification services 4 50% 13.7x UL Solutions Inc. (ULS) · TIC Solutions, Inc. (TIC) · +2 more Accredited work, recurring by design. Four companies, 50% of the set, of which UL Solutions Inc. (ULS), Transcat, Inc. (TRNS) and TIC Solutions, Inc. (TIC) carry a forward estimate and sit at 13.7x; Team, Inc. (TISI) is shown on the page without one. Revenue here renews through surveillance audits and recertification cycles, and accredited scope is slow to stand up from scratch. Adjacent models 4 50% 9.0x Pearson plc (PSO) · Sotera Health Company (SHC) · +2 more Sold alongside the accredited work. Four companies — Pearson plc (PSO), Sotera Health Company (SHC), Crane NXT, Co. (CXT) and AudioEye, Inc. (AEYE) — all carrying a forward estimate, sitting at 9.0x. The group mixes equipment, licensed laboratory capacity, assessment content and compliance workflow software, so margin structures differ widely within it.

7. 07
   SECTION 03

   03

   Divider introducing the valuation section.

   This section ranks every rated name on EV/EBITDA for CY2027E, from top of the range to bottom. We use the ranking to frame what forward multiples already credit before we turn to transactions.

   Everything on this page

   SECTION 03 03 VALUATION & SITUATIONS Where Each Name Sits in the Forward Range The ranked view on EV / EBITDA for CY2027E, top of the range to bottom. 03 of 06 Testing, Inspection and Certification Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 7

8. 08
   03 · PUBLIC MARKET VALUATION

   The Top of the Range Holds a Premium That a Forward Multiple Already Credits

   Ranks all seven rated companies by EV/EBITDA (CY2027E) against the sector median of 9.7x.

   All seven rated companies sort into a clear range, with the sector median sitting at 9.7x on CY2027E EBITDA. Because this is already a forward multiple, the premium at the top of the range reflects expectations for the earnings still to come, not just current profitability. That is a meaningful distinction for anyone evaluating whether a name's rating is justified by growth or by segment identity alone. The tier zones on this page are NeuraCap's own cut of the data, not an external classification.

   Everything on this page

   03 · PUBLIC MARKET VALUATION The Top of the Range Holds a Premium That a Forward Multiple Already Credits EV / EBITDA (CY2027E) · all 7 rated companies, sorted descending · sector median 9.7x · 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 8 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. Testing, Inspection and Certification Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 8 PREMIUM · median 15.0x CORE · median 9.7x DISCOUNT · median 7.2x Sector median 9.7x WHAT SEPARATES THE TWO ENDS The top of the range. Two names sit at 15.0x on CY2027E EBITDA. Because the lens is forward, the forecast growth is already in the denominator, so a premium that survives it is associated with earnings buyers treat as durable rather than with a single strong year. The bottom of the range. Two names sit at 7.2x. Both sit in the adjacent models half of the set, where revenue leans on customer equipment budgets and software renewals rather than on accredited scope that a standard or an insurer requires. The two halves sort apart. The two companies at the top of the range both sit in outsourced inspection and verification services; the two at the bottom both sit in adjacent models. Seven of the 8 companies on the page carry a forward estimate, so the ranking rests on a small set and should be read as position, not as a verdict.

9. 09
   03 · VALUATION DRIVERS

   The Faster-Growing Half Holds the Higher Multiples, on Seven Names

   Splits the rated names into faster/slower revenue-growth and higher/lower-margin cohorts and compares median multiples.

   On seven rated names, the faster-growing cohort holds the higher median multiple, and the same pattern holds when we cut on margin instead of growth. This is an association we observe in the data, not a causal claim, and the cohorts are small enough that it should be read directionally. Still, the consistency across both cuts is useful evidence for how this market is pricing growth and margin quality together. It sets up the situation map that follows.

   Everything on this page

   03 · VALUATION DRIVERS The Faster-Growing Half Holds the Higher Multiples, on Seven Names 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. Testing, Inspection and Certification Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 9 EV/EBITDA, median per cohort · growth split at 6% · EBITDA-margin split at 25% Split the Set at 6% Forward Growth and the Halves Price Apart The 4 names above the 6% line sit at 12.1x; the 3 names below it sit at 8.8x. That is an association across the 7 names with a forward estimate, on a base small enough that one company moves it — not a pricing rule. Margin on Its Own Does Not Track Position in the Range AudioEye, Inc. (AEYE) carries a 32% EBITDA margin and 10% forward growth and still sits at 6.1x, at the bottom of the range. Margin level and multiple move together in parts of this set and apart in others. Margin Structures Differ Far More than the Multiples Do Sotera Health Company (SHC) runs a 52% EBITDA margin and TIC Solutions, Inc. (TIC) a 16% one, yet the two sit closer together on the forward lens at 10.6x against 8.8x. Asset-heavy licensed capacity and people-intensive field work are different businesses that the same multiple can land on. What the Screen Cannot See Is What Diligence Spends Its Time On Our read, based on how these assets are underwritten: the mandated versus discretionary revenue mix, transferability of accredited scope on change of control, and the liability tail on certificates already issued sit behind names at both ends of this range. None of that is measured here, and all of it is testable inside a business.

10. 10
    03 · SITUATION MAP

    The Higher Multiples and the Wider Margins Sit Together in the Same Names

    Cross-tabs EV/EBITDA against the sector median and EBITDA margin against the covered median to show where names cluster.

    When we cut the set on multiple versus the 9.7x sector median and on margin versus the 25% covered median, the higher multiples and the wider margins land in the same names. We present this as an observation, not a recommendation to buy or sell any security. The boundaries are the cohort's own medians, so they move with the data rather than an external benchmark. For a reader thinking about positioning, this cross-tab is the fastest way to see who currently sits in the premium quadrant.

    Everything on this page

    03 · SITUATION MAP The Higher Multiples and the Wider Margins Sit Together in the Same Names Cut on EV / EBITDA vs the sector median (9.7x) (rows) and EBITDA margin vs the covered median (25%) (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. Testing, Inspection and Certification Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 10 Above the Middle on Both Above-median multiple · above-median EBITDA margin 3 names UL Solutions Inc. (ULS) · Pearson plc (PSO) · Sotera Health Company (SHC) UL Solutions Inc. (ULS), Pearson plc (PSO) and Sotera Health Company (SHC) sit above the 9.7x middle of the range and above the 25% margin mark. For an owner, this is the position where pricing, renewal rates and mandated scope are already being credited, and the work is holding them through a slower demand year. Multiple Ahead of the Margin Above-median multiple · below-median EBITDA margin 1 names Transcat, Inc. (TRNS) Transcat, Inc. (TRNS) sits above the middle on the multiple and below it on margin. That combination puts the weight on conversion — realisation rate, technician utilisation and price escalators keeping pace with labour cost — because the margin has to catch up to what the forward lens is already carrying. Margin Ahead of the Multiple Below-median multiple · above-median EBITDA margin 1 names AudioEye, Inc. (AEYE) AudioEye, Inc. (AEYE) sits above the middle on margin and below it on the multiple. Where margin is wide and the multiple is not, the question an owner can answer is how much of the revenue base renews on its own and how concentrated it is by customer or end market. Below the Middle on Both Below-median multiple · below-median EBITDA margin 2 names Crane NXT, Co. (CXT) · TIC Solutions, Inc. (TIC) Crane NXT, Co. (CXT) and TIC Solutions, Inc. (TIC) sit below the middle on both measures. The levers here are mix and cost structure: which scopes carry recurring, mandated work, and which ones compete locally on price with little to defend them.

11. 11
    03 · THE AGENDA

    Margin Quality and Revenue Mix Are Where This Set's Multiples Separate

    Frames the questions an owner or acquirer should resolve around margin quality and revenue mix.

    Margin quality and revenue mix are where this set's multiples separate, and we frame that as a set of questions rather than a verdict. These are observations grounded in the cohort data shown earlier, not investment advice. For an owner, the practical exercise is testing your own mix and margin against the medians we just walked through. That comparison is the bridge into the transaction evidence next.

    Everything on this page

    03 · THE AGENDA Margin Quality and Revenue Mix Are Where This Set's Multiples Separate 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. Testing, Inspection and Certification Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 11 Decide Which Scopes Get the Next Tranche of Capacity Capacity added in accredited, mandated scopes renews through surveillance and recertification cycles; capacity added in discretionary field work moves with customer budgets. Resolve which of the two the next laboratory, chamber or assessor bench serves. What changes the answer: A shift in the mandated share of revenue as scheme owners bring new standards into scope. Settle Build Versus Buy on Accredited Scope Standing up a new scope takes time and assessor capacity; buying one brings scope with a change-of-control approval attached. The answer turns on how long the organic route takes against the accreditation risk on the acquired route. What changes the answer: Evidence on whether a target's designations transfer, and how long integration onto a single accreditation takes. Price Against Labour Cost, Not Against Last Year In people-intensive scopes, escalators that lag technician cost show up in margin before they show up anywhere else. Review realisation rate and turnaround commitments alongside the contracted escalator on the largest accounts. What changes the answer: Realisation rate slipping while billable technician cost rises through the renewal cycle. Choose Which Half of the Set You Are Compared Against Revenue mix decides whether a company reads as outsourced inspection and verification services or as an adjacent model, and the two halves of this set are valued at different levels. Mix moves with what gets sold, priced and cross-sold, not with how the business is described. What changes the answer: Revenue shifting between accredited service delivery and product, content or software lines.

12. 12
    SECTION 04

    04

    Divider introducing the precedent transactions section.

    This section covers six recorded transactions with disclosed terms, read for pricing level and for buyer type. We use it to test whether deal pricing agrees with where the public market currently sits.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 04 04 PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS What Buyers Agreed to Pay for Testing and Inspection Assets Six recorded transactions, read for level and for buyer type. 04 of 06 Testing, Inspection and Certification Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 12

13. 13
    04 · DEAL CASE STUDIES

    Recent Transactions Were Agreed Near the Middle of the Range

    Walks through one of six disclosed-terms transactions as a case study, including the H.I.G. Capital acquisition of Mistras Group.

    Recent transactions were agreed near the middle of the public valuation range rather than at the top or bottom. In the most recent case, H.I.G. Capital agreed to acquire Mistras Group, Inc. at a recorded enterprise value of $848M. Deal multiples here are calculated on LTM financials at announcement, so they are not directly comparable to the CY2027E public basis, and we do not claim a spread between the two. The full set of recorded transactions, including those excluded from this case-study view, sits in the appendix.

    Everything on this page

    04 · DEAL CASE STUDIES Recent Transactions Were Agreed Near the Middle of the Range 1 of 6 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. 19 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; no evidence record); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 11 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. Testing, Inspection and Certification Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 13 Sep-2026 $848M H.I.G. Capital H.I.G. Capital agreed to acquire Mistras Group, Inc. in the most recent transaction on the record. EV / LTM revenue 1.1x EV / LTM EBITDA 10.3x WHY THE DEAL HAPPENED The buyer is a financial sponsor and the target is an asset inspection business, which points to a buy-and-build around accredited field inspection capacity rather than a strategic extension of an existing scope. The size of the transaction suggests a platform purchase of the kind regional calibration and inspection assets are later assembled around. HOW THE TARGET WAS VALUED The transaction is recorded at an enterprise value of $848M, 10.3x EBITDA and 1.1x revenue, with value shown as recorded in the filing. That EBITDA level sits above the bottom of this set's forward range and below the top of it.

14. 14
    SECTION 05

    05

    Divider introducing the strategic implications section.

    This section turns the evidence into operating questions for the company you run. We use it to connect the valuation and transaction findings to concrete next steps.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 05 05 STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS What This Means for the Company You Run The operating moves the evidence points to, and what would change the answer. 05 of 06 Testing, Inspection and Certification Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 14

15. 15
    05 · STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

    Three Patterns in This Set: Durable Margin, the Mix of Work, and Scale Added by Acquisition

    Sets out three patterns in the data: durable margin, mix of work, and scale added by acquisition.

    Three patterns come out of this set: durable margin, the mix of accredited versus adjacent work, and scale added through acquisition. These are NeuraCap views drawn from the analysis in this report, framed as observations rather than recommendations. For owners, boards and acquirers, each pattern points to a different decision to resolve over the next twelve months. We set out what each audience should be asking on this page.

    Everything on this page

    05 · STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Three Patterns in This Set: Durable Margin, the Mix of Work, and Scale Added by Acquisition 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. Testing, Inspection and Certification Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 15 FOR OWNERS Grow the Part of Revenue That Renews on Its Own Across this set, the names above the middle of the range on both measures are the ones with mandated, repeating scope behind them. Concentrating sales effort and capacity on surveillance, recertification and cross-sell between testing, inspection and certification is the operating version of that position. FOR BOARDS Treat Accreditation and Liability as Capital Decisions Accredited scope, site density and the liability tail on issued certificates are what buyers underwrite in this sector, and they are set years before they show in earnings. Maintenance capital that keeps sites accredited belongs in the capital plan alongside growth capital, not below it. FOR ACQUIRERS Underwrite the Spread Between a Platform and a Bolt-on Four of the 6 recorded transactions carry a disclosed EBITDA multiple, and they sit near the middle of this set's forward range rather than at the top. Multi-site accredited scope and single-scope regional assets are different purchases, and the difference is worth pricing explicitly.

16. 16
    SECTION 06

    06

    Divider introducing the appendix covering the full comparables universe, methodology and sources.

    This section holds the comparables detail behind every figure in the body, the valuation basis, and the methodology notes. We use it as the reference section for anyone who wants to trace a number back to its source.

    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 Testing, Inspection and Certification 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

    Lists all public comparables with EV/EBITDA (CY2027E), grouped by valuation tier, covering seven rated and one unrated company.

    This page carries all seven rated comparables plus the one company without an eligible multiple, grouped by valuation tier against the 9.7x sector median. Every rated row here also appears in the companion workbook, which carries the complete field set. This is the reference page for checking any multiple used earlier in the deck. Tickers link through to the underlying source for anyone who wants to verify a specific figure.

    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 (9.7x); amber marks below · 7 rated companies; 1 not rated (no eligible EV/EBITDA) · 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. Names without an eligible multiple are listed in the companion workbook. Testing, Inspection and Certification 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 — ≥12.1x · median 15.0x · 2 companies Transcat, Inc. TRNS Outsourced inspection and verification services $927M 16.3x 6% 15% 21 UL Solutions Inc. ULS Outsourced inspection and verification services $13.4B 13.7x 7% 28% 36 CORE — 8.5x–12.1x · median 9.7x · 3 companies Sotera Health Company SHC Regulated laboratory testing for devices and biologics $7.2B 10.6x 6% 52% 58 Pearson plc PSO Adjacent: assessment content and credentialing… $12.3B 9.7x 5% 25% 29 TIC Solutions, Inc. TIC Outsourced inspection and verification services $3.2B 8.8x 5% 16% 21 DISCOUNT — <8.5x · median 7.2x · 2 companies Crane NXT, Co. CXT Test, measurement and inspection equipment suppliers $4.0B 8.3x 6% 24% 30 AudioEye, Inc. AEYE Conformity data and compliance workflow platforms $93M 6.1x 10% 32% 42

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

    All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First

    Lists all transactions with disclosed terms, newest first, alongside the count of recorded transactions overall.

    This page lists the six transactions with disclosed terms in newest-first order, out of seventeen recorded in total. Multiples shown are LTM at announcement, and deal values link through to the underlying filing. Transactions without a disclosed value or multiple are kept in the companion workbook rather than shown here. This is the source page for every deal figure referenced earlier in the report.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (1 OF 1) All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First 6 transactions with disclosed terms in this tier (17 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. 19 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; no evidence record); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 11 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. Testing, Inspection and Certification Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 18 Date Transaction EV EV/LTM Rev EV/LTM EBITDA Why it matters Sep-2026 H.I.G. Capital → Mistras Group, Inc. $848M 1.1x 10.3x H.I.G. Capital agreed to acquire Mistras Group, Inc. in Sep-2026 at 10.3x EBITDA and 1.1x revenue; the transaction is recorded as announced, with value shown as recorded in the filing. Jan-2021 PerkinElmer, Inc. → Oxford Immunotec Global PLC n/a 7.3x n/a PerkinElmer, Inc. agreed to acquire Oxford Immunotec Global PLC in Jan-2021 at 7.3x revenue, announced. Regulated test businesses have been bought by instrument and diagnostics groups extending into verification. Nov-2018 SMTC Corporation → MC Test Service, Inc. n/a 0.5x 6.7x SMTC Corporation agreed to acquire MC Test Service, Inc. in Nov-2018 at 0.5x revenue and 6.7x EBITDA, announced. A small, single-scope test operation sits at a different level from a platform with multi-site accredited scope. Oct-2014 Engility Holdings, Inc. → TASC, Inc. n/a n/a 12.2x Engility Holdings, Inc. agreed to acquire TASC, Inc. in Oct-2014 at 12.2x EBITDA, announced. Even that level sits below the top of the current forward range for this set. Sep-2010 William Demant Holding A/S → Otix Global, Inc. n/a 0.7x n/a William Demant Holding A/S agreed to acquire Otix Global, Inc. in Sep-2010 at 0.7x revenue, announced, with value shown as recorded in the filing. The print is dated and is read here as context rather than as a current benchmark. n/a n/a → Team, Inc. n/a n/a 10.1x A transaction for Team, Inc. is recorded at 10.1x EBITDA with status announced and the acquirer recorded as n/a. Team, Inc. (TISI) is also one of the 8 companies on the valuation page.

19. 19
    06 · METHODOLOGY

    Sources, Assumptions and Data Quality

    Sources, Assumptions and Data Quality.

    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. 19

    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. Testing, Inspection and Certification Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice 19 VALUATION BASIS Primary valuation basis: EV / EBITDA on CY2027E consensus (7 of 8 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 Testing, Inspection and Certification and it clears the coverage gate with 7 of 8 companies (88%). 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 10 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 327 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 (326) · home.treasury.gov (1). The companion workbook beside this deck carries the complete source index.

20. 20

    Two Price Levels Under One Sector Label, with the Gap Running Between and Within.

    Closes on the finding that two price levels sit under one sector label.

    Two price levels sit under one sector label, with the gap running both between the two halves and within each one. The companion tables carry the full universe, the exclusion ledger and the complete source index for any figure a client wants to trace. That is the evidence base underneath everything we have walked through today.

    Everything on this page

    Two Price Levels Under One Sector Label, with the Gap Running Between and Within. NeuraCap AI — Testing, Inspection and Certification Coverage September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential Testing, Inspection and Certification Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 20

More coverage in Industrials

• Bi-Weekly Update · Sep 28, 2026Testing, Inspection and Certification Bi-Weekly Industry Events & M&A Update — September 14–28, 2026
• Bi-Weekly Update · Sep 28, 2026Propulsion and Engine Systems Bi-Weekly Industry Events & M&A Update — September 14–28, 2026
• Sector Report · Sep 28, 2026Propulsion and Engine Systems Sector Outlook — September 2026
• Bi-Weekly Update · Sep 28, 2026Pumps, Compressors and Fluid Handling Bi-Weekly Industry Events & M&A Update — September 14–28, 2026