[HN Gopher] Zapier reached a $5B valuation with $1.3M of funding ___________________________________________________________________ Zapier reached a $5B valuation with $1.3M of funding Author : gmays Score : 186 points Date : 2021-03-09 21:40 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (www.forbes.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.forbes.com) | eloff wrote: | > "For us, we've always looked at financing events, whether | they're primary, secondary or public markets, as a tool in the | tool belt. It's something that you can reach for as a person who | runs a business that can help you when you need it," says Foster. | "I think that's a much healthier approach to things than sort of | getting on a hamster wheel that is difficult to get off." | | That's seems like a pragmatic and healthy attitude towards | venture capital. I feel like venture capital is gasoline. You can | pour in on a fire to make it grow quickly, just make sure you | first have a good fire going and careful not to get burned in the | process. | efsavage wrote: | Most VC would love it if they could be 100% gasoline. The | common problems people usually generally arise from them having | more fuel than there are fires to put it on. | redisman wrote: | The problem is if you're 100% gasoline then the founders | would do well to just get a loan | bpodgursky wrote: | Having the right investors adds value in a way a bank | holding a loan absolutely never will. | redisman wrote: | But if the company is using money as "100% gasoline" then | they've got it figured out and don't need intros from the | investors. | ben-gy wrote: | Correct - accelerant can be traded for "equity for lots | of cash plus advice" or purchased "cash for advice" - I'm | a big fan of bootstrapping to a financially stable state | and having the option to take either route without the | business being reliant on either - then again, in | Australia we don't have much choice anyway - venture | capital and banks are both exceedingly conservative which | perpetuates this approach more so than in other | ecosystems with more funding liquidity. | staysaasy wrote: | I usually equate VC to some new experimental rocket fuel. It's | by far the best way to get yourself into orbit, but the | downside is that if it fails you're going to explode rather | than cruise to a nice landing. | chris_va wrote: | I really cannot tell if the secondary market shares were common | stock or preferred. | | $5B valuation for common shares is a very different thing than | $5B for preferred shares. | xiaodai wrote: | Congrats to them! | ineedasername wrote: | A great example of a slow-burn startup. They had a solid product | & revenue stream pretty early meaning they could cover costs and | just wait as things grew incrementally. | | Of course that wouldn't work for every product model... some | really need that huge capital-driven massive growth to get to | some economy of scale. But if you can avoid that, you probably | keep a heck of a lot more equity for both founder & early (and | maybe not so early?) employees. | valuearb wrote: | $5B is a pretty ridiculous valuation for a $140M revenues | company. | ineedasername wrote: | 30x revenue multiples are actually not too uncommon, especially | for a SaaS firm that appeals to both small & enterprise | customers, is already profitable, and has a large addressable | market. | | Here's an article that has a frequency chart based on valuation | multiples. Keep in mind that, while it's front-loaded with | lower multiples, not all business models have the same | potential for revenue growth: https://onstartupexits.com/how- | to-value-the-exit-price-for-a... | [deleted] | staysaasy wrote: | I agree that it feels pretty cray but it's inline with the | market. Sector is hot, it has a trendy + efficient product- | driven growth model, they're profitable, and growth looks good. | There's a lot to like which gives them a revenue multiple at | the high end of the market - which currently puts them right | around $5B. | bpodgursky wrote: | Zapier has mindshare, enormous depth of functionality, and an | enormous potential market. Doesn't feel insane to me. I'd buy | in. | reducesuffering wrote: | No, it's not, because that isn't enough information to | determine your conclusion. That's a 36x P/S ratio. Many | established public companies are at or exceeding that, like | Cloudflare and Crowdstrike. (those companies COULD be | overvalued too, but it depends on something else) | | The most important factor or metric you're missing from the | equation is growth (assuming eventual profit margins are | normal). It doesn't matter what today's revenue numbers are, if | there is an eventual much better revenue number in the future. | | This can be sustained by something like: | | 100% YoY growth over 5 years: 4.5b revenue at a $5b valuation? | | 50% YoY growth over 10 years: 8b revenue at a $5b valuation? | | Looking much more like a lot of value there. | layoric wrote: | I'm not that familiar with tech company revenue growth | examples but can you point to many other $5B companies (or | companies already making $100M revenue) that get 50% YoY | growth for 10 years? As far as revenue goes? That kind of | revenue growth would put them into the top 500 companies in | the US by revenue, close to eBay [0]. To me this seems very | optimistic but I only known the basics about Zapier, not | their future direction etc so I'm likely missing info. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_i | n_t... | jtsiskin wrote: | For some context, some other current P/Es: Google: 35.06 | Apple: 32.54 Microsoft: 34.64 PayPal: 68.38 Amazon: 73.10 | Shopify: 420.04 Square: 515.13 Tesla: 1,043.84 | hangonhn wrote: | When Slack IPOed, their revenue was around $500 mil and their | market cap was $16 billion, IIRC. So Zapier seems pretty | inline. | isoskeles wrote: | I am using Zapier because their service was very easy to | implement a webhook for what I needed at the time. However, the | price is high enough that they're on my short list of vendors | to move on from when I have the time to spend building my own | integration (not replacing everything Zapier does, just for my | use-case). | | I suspect I am not their intended customer as I don't get a lot | of value out of the dozens (hundreds?) of API implementations | they offer. But I wonder how much of that revenue represents | customers with similar plans. | mooreds wrote: | I'll tell you about the first time I started using Zapier. I | wanted to move some data from google spreadsheets to some | other system (I don't actually recall what it was, it was | 2012). I was on a team of three devs supporting a business | critical application. | | The options for me were: * bump something | else to have a dev build out the integration * pay the | monthly fee to enable a non technical person to build the | integration (it was on the order of $50/month). * | don't get the work done | | Above and beyond the value of the UI and uptime managed by | someone else, the fact that it could get done by a non | programmer made the monthly fee very worth paying. | | I think I've used it at 3 companies since, mostly on the free | plan. But when I exceed the plan, I don't have any trouble | pulling out the company's wallet to pay for it. | frongpik wrote: | So on paper they are billionaires, but in fact they only have a | bit over 1M - just enough to pay bills for 6 months. | nacs wrote: | From the article: | | > Zapier reached $100 million in annualized recurring revenue | | They have access to a lot more than a million. | brenryd wrote: | They have only raised $1.3m, which they most likely spent a | long time ago. They have been profitable (self-sustaining) for | years. Sure their stock is not liquid, but there is a strong | case that they could move towards liquidation (IPO) at a $5 | billion or higher valuation. | kyleblarson wrote: | They went through YC. That's VC funding. (I was in the same | batch) | peignoir wrote: | Really a great story and super proud they started at startup | weekend https://zapier.com/blog/startup-weekend-part-i-idea/ | | It's also a good signal for the ecosystem to have alternate | venture paths and vehicles where founders can keep higher | ownership. | | Kudos to them | didibus wrote: | So Zapier is like a later competitor to IFTTT ? But basically the | same thing? | alvarlagerlof wrote: | It's way more business-oriented and has more advanced pipelines | and integrations. | supernovae wrote: | IFTTT kinda gave up in comparison to Zapier - zapier has so | many api/service/framework/tool interfaces where IFTTT kinda | just went niche with home automation and basic stuff beyond | that. | | For example, with IFTTT the RSS trigger is pretty stupid but | with zapier you can trigger based on parsed fields with values | and triggers on those values... | | I had hoped that Zapier would put some pressure on IFTTT to do | more but it seems like they're comfortable focusing on | IoT/basics/appliances | didibus wrote: | I see, so similar idea, but they have more features with | regards to triggers and maybe integration is more focused on | business services then IoT and like consumer needs? | lawrencevillain wrote: | They did take VC funding though? By pulling themselves up by | their bootstraps (and a meager $1.3 million in funding) they were | able to start a company! | | That's not an insignificant sum of money, I see that they didn't | take further rounds, but still this feels like a nice marketing | piece with a bad headline. | vladislav wrote: | It's strictly speaking correct in that the $5B valuation was | established purely on the secondary market and only from sales | of shares of investors (not common holders), which doesn't give | the company any VC funding. Also $1.3M in seed funding is a | rounding error to get to $5B. | notyourday wrote: | This smells like a sophisticated investor pump and dump: sell | a small number of shares for a stupid amount to use the new | valuation as the marker. | | I would trust this number far less than a number one would | arrive at a new VC round | vmception wrote: | The article says "hamster wheel", not that they didn't take it. | The headline here adds ambiguity that wasnt written | dang wrote: | OK, we've disambiguated that in the title above. (Submitted | title was "Zapier reached a $5B valuation without VC | funding".) | imacoder wrote: | If there is a valuation, then there was funding or there will | be funding. | | Looks like funding came from YC, so yeah, they were funded. | jeff18 wrote: | Not necessarily! Shares trade all the time without funding | the company. The valuation depends on what people pay for | those shares. | imacoder wrote: | If it has shares, it's funded. Doesn't matter if they are | traded later. Also, HN is an echo chamber. | falcor84 wrote: | It is really unclear, but I suppose maybe they only took money | from angel investors? | lawrencevillain wrote: | It looks like they were part of the S12 cohort for YC, and | that is definitely VC money. | [deleted] | capableweb wrote: | Very unlike HN to upvote a comment that has reacted only to the | headline on HN, not even the articles own headline, even less | the body of the article. Maybe because everyone reading the | comments is doing it the same way? | Kaze404 wrote: | What's wrong with criticizing a headline that presents | factually untrue information? | capableweb wrote: | It's a editorialized headline that only appears on HN. The | submission itself (it's content) doesn't actually say | anything like the title is (was? Seems title changed) | dang wrote: | It tends to take the thread to a shallow place, when there | are usually much deeper and more interesting aspects to | discuss. | pc86 wrote: | How is that "unlike HN?" I pretty regularly see comments that | either make it clear the author didn't read the article (e.g. | arguing against points not made, or "adding" additional | information that's in the second paragraph) or explicitly say | they're only responding to title or some tangential point. | supernova87a wrote: | I don't understand. They first say that they didn't start with | VCs. And only finally, 2 months ago, "Sequoia and Steadfast | Financial bought shares at a $5 billion valuation from some of | Zapier's original investors." | | But the original investors were "Bessemer Venture Partners, | Threshold, Salesforce Ventures and Missouri-based Permanent | Equity..." | | So how is that not having VC at your origins? | dang wrote: | The submitted title was "Zapier reached a $5B valuation without | VC funding". We've changed it now. | stingraycharles wrote: | HN headline was editorialized, original headline is more | nuanced and meant to imply "without taking a lot of VC money" | rather than none at all. | bradlys wrote: | Congrats to the founders for not taking much funding but for | employees... this has to suck unless they get to sell their | shares to Sequoia as well. (If they even got any options...) | Maybe they don't compete for SV talent and most employees aren't | used to even getting options as part of compensation. | | Is there a specific reason a company would have IPO in mind but | wouldn't say they are looking to do an IPO eventually? Is there a | particular reason to say that? | matthewheath wrote: | I believe only a few of the original Zapier folks have options | (I don't hold any myself, for example but I joined when they | were around 70 people). | propter_hoc wrote: | Really? Only cash comp? | jcomis wrote: | Yes | sjg007 wrote: | So without options, why did you join? | [deleted] | heavyset_go wrote: | Title is inaccurate, they took VC funding. | mandeepj wrote: | > Last summer, Zapier reached $100 million in annualized | recurring revenue; it's passed $140 million by now | | $1.3M in $140M RR is like a paper change. So, they can't find | that amount somewhere in their revenue stream? | marketingtech wrote: | Zapier joins Tealium and Segment on the list of billion dollar | valuations for powering the next generation of ad tech. | | As cross-site cookies and browser pixels are increasingly | blocked, ad platforms are moving from browser-based tracking to | server-side data transfer. | | Like those other companies, Zapier provides a single integration | point that funnels user and conversion data to dozens of | marketing companies' server-side APIs. A few clicks allow you to | transfer your customer data to/from hundreds of different | platforms. | tootie wrote: | Zapier isn't necessarily just for ad tech. It can any kind of | ad hoc automation between well-defined services. We use it for | support ticket automation. | kritiko wrote: | How is this CCPA / GDPR compliant? | [deleted] | michaelbuckbee wrote: | CCPA/GDPR don't really prohibit you from doing things with | data or sharing with 3rd parties you just have to be really | upfront about it. | | Say you were going to take the "Contact Us" form submissions | from your website push those to Zapier to check if they were | legitimate (before sending email to the addresses), you would | need to disclose what 3rd parties you're using, what data is | shared with them, etc. | | Checkout this massive list of companies that PayPal "shares" | your data with - | https://www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/mpp/ua/third-parties-list | | (mostly for fraud + geo checking) | marketingtech wrote: | There's a distinction between being a data controller and a | data processor. | | The businesses that use these platforms are the data | *controllers* and are responsible for implementing consent, | "do not sell my information", "show me my data", or "delete | my data" flows as required by law. The platforms generally | offer APIs to implement these required data flows in a | centralized way, which is another major value prop for them. | | The platforms serve as the data *processor* and can assume | the data is compliantly obtained by the controller until | informed otherwise. | staunch wrote: | Zapier is a good example of copying a good idea (IFTTT) and fast- | following with good execution. Sure, copying can seem lame, but | Google was copying Alta Vista, Facebook was copying Friendster, | Microsoft was copying everyone, etc. | | Good ideas are important but good execution is more important. | amelius wrote: | Yes but did they copy the idea using their own skills, or did | they need VC funding to get it off the ground? | | The former seems ok-ish, the latter not so cool and unfair to | the original inventors of the idea. | staunch wrote: | We can't run the experiment but it's safe to assume most | startups that took very early funding did need it to succeed. | That doesn't really take away from the founders effort | though. Although it does mean there were probably 10 other | teams that had the same idea and skills that failed for not | having the ability to raise funding. | ineedasername wrote: | It's also unclear just how much IFTTT influenced that start of | Zapier. IFTTT was announced only about 10 months earlier than | Zapier. Zapier announced right around when IFTTT has a live | prototype. REST APIs were _really_ hitting popularity at that | point, so services like these were becoming more & more | obvious-- simultaneous invention is a thing. [0] Also, years | earlier, there had been a relatively similar offering from | Yahoo, Yahoo Pipes, [1] so the idea was pretty much out there | before both of these companies. The rise of REST APIs really | just made it much more feasible. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery | | [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Pipes | mooreds wrote: | RIP Yahoo Pipes! It even had a GUI editor. Reminded me of an | ETL tool much more than Zapier did (even though in some ways | that is what they both are). | superbcarrot wrote: | Sometimes I get shocked by these numbers and it reminds me how | little I know about business. Like if you showed me the wikipedia | page for Zapier and asked me give it some value, I would be way | off. Or if you pitched the business idea to me, I would tell you | do something better with your time. | toomuchtodo wrote: | Khan Academy has an amazing collection of videos on finance. I | highly recommend it for understanding cash flows, enterprise | value, etc. It's helped me transition (one foot out the door) | from tech to finance. | artemonster wrote: | Any other good sources, like books or articles ? | ab_testing wrote: | The valuation of current tech companies is way astronomical | compared to what is considered normal for mature companies. | | The average price to sales for S&P used to be between | 1.5-2.5 for many decades. However for these newly IPO | companies the price to sales ratios are around 10-15. | | Similarly the P/E ratio for S&P companies used to be in the | 15-25 range to the considered normal . | | However with these internet companies, they usually do not | turn a profit or if they do, their PE ratios usually | lingers in from ~100 to 1000. And the market considers that | normal behavior now. | andrewmcwatters wrote: | > However with these internet companies, they usually do | not turn a profit or if they do, their PE ratios usually | lingers in from ~100 to 1000. And the market considers | that normal behavior now. | | That's not normal, it's pure stupid. So if you don't | think there are people sitting on the sidelines watching | idiots bid up shares way, way beyond the replacement | value of companies, you're not watching the same thing | happen that others are. | | Do people even understand what these numbers mean? It | means after expenses, assuming no future growth, that's | how many years it would take to make back your | investment. | | Do you know why a P/E ratio of 15 was historically | considered high? Because even with modest growth, no one | wants to wait 15 years for corporate revenues and | acquisition costs to break even. News flash, 15 to 25 | years isn't normal. | | The average company doesn't even make it 15 to 25 years | these days. | throwawayyipyip wrote: | Well, to some extent it is. You can argue both ways, and | in Zapier's case, I'd say it's overvalued as the 10-15 | range assumes obtaining a monopoly. I don't see how | Zapier will do that since there's also IFTTT and other | services I've tried. | | With that said, consider huge successes like Amazon. Huge | successes like Amazon have been generating much more | profit compared to what they were projected to earn in | 2010 [1]. I picked 2010 since 2 things are out of the | way: the tech boom and the credit crunch. Moreover, | people understood that Amazon was here to stay. Despite | that, 10 years later, they make 20 times as much profit. | If investors knew that 10 years ago, I'd bet that the | price would not have been about 130$ since according to | Google Finance, the diluted earnings per share (EPS) is | about 42$, which is about 30% of the 2010 stock price. | | Mind you, in 2010, investors already put crazy multiples | on stocks like Amazon. Yet, their prediction on how much | money it would make has been underestimated back then. If | the estimates of 2010 were correct, you'd expect Amazon | to now have an EPS of like 6.5$ (130/20) since by | conservative measures, the P/E ratio is in the 15-25 | range. | | Correct me if I'm wrong on this, I'm not the sharpest | cookie in the jar. | | [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon | /net-in... | | [2] https://www.google.com/finance/quote/AMZN:NASDAQ?wind | ow=MAX | valzam wrote: | However, Amazon never pays dividends. And you probably | cannot really vote on anything with your stock either. So | what's the point? There is an interesting article about | Facebook with a similar opinion. Zuck owns the majority | vote and they never pay dividends. What's the point of | owning the stock? | enra wrote: | The article title is accurate, the one in HN right now is not. | | The point was that they did YC and seed round but didn't raise | funding after that. Traditionally startups raise every 18mo and | have raised A,B,C,D etc in ~10 years and before hitting $5B | valuation. | | Even with the latest round, it was a secondary sale, so not | dilutive raise. Some investors sold shares to other investors but | no new shares where created. | | Avoiding that "vc hamster wheel" is that you avoid the | conversations, meetings, fundraise roadshows and dilution every | 18mo or so. So I think Zapier is an interesting example of a | startup choosing a different path. Not purely bootstrapped or | traditional vc backed company. | DamnYuppie wrote: | This will work out very well for YC as well as it means their | shares were not diluted. Overall it is a huge win for everyone | at Zapier and their early investors, job well done! | dang wrote: | (The submitted title was "Zapier reached a $5B valuation | without VC funding". We've changed it now.) | alexashka wrote: | This company reminds me of library vs service topic on here a | couple of days ago. | | 5 billion dollars for what should've been a free set of libraries | and competing UI interfaces to cater to different levels of tech | savviness. | | It's crazy how complicated the simplest things are in tech that | these companies even need to exist. Hopefully it's just growing | pains, rather than consolidation and a swamp for decades to come, | like we've had with Microsoft. | jeremy_k wrote: | Who are these engineers that would have built these free | libraries? | newsclues wrote: | They work for the companies selling the UI? | alexashka wrote: | The same people who built Ruby on Rails or D3.js or a hundred | other projects because they had an itch that needed to be | scratched. | | The only reason we don't have free libraries for these things | is because the vendors are not forced to provide basic | interop functionality such as import/export. | | I'm no historian but I imagine it goes back to proprietary | file formats. That should've never been a thing and since | then, people've just accepted that they don't have any | ability to modify their own data unless they use a | proprietary tool, which is crazy. | ineedasername wrote: | @dang HN's title is misleading as the actual title doesn't say | Zapier avoided VC funding. | dang wrote: | Fixed now. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-03-10 23:00 UTC)