How to Value an Insurance Broker: EBITDA, Portfolio Quality and Industrial Value

In insurance distribution M&A, EBITDA multiples are widely used as a shorthand for valuation. But a broker's value cannot be reduced to a simple formula. The multiple is the result of revenue quality, organic growth, specialization, management continuity, integration readiness and deal structure.

In this article

1. The EBITDA multiple is a starting point, not the value
2. Normalized EBITDA: what should really be measured
3. Portfolio quality and recurring revenue
4. Retention and concentration
5. Organic growth and commercial capability
6. Specialization and market positioning
7. Founder dependency and management continuity
8. Technology, compliance and integration readiness
9. Price, earn-out and transaction structure
10. How much are insurance brokers worth?
11. Why two brokers with the same EBITDA can be worth different amounts
12. The Italian market context
13. The ASSINOVA thesis
14. Related insight
15. Sources

The EBITDA multiple is a starting point, not the value

In insurance intermediary M&A, the EBITDA multiple remains one of the most common ways to express valuation. Yet the formula “EBITDA × multiple = value” is incomplete.

The multiple is better understood as the output of a broader assessment of the business: economics, portfolio quality, people, operating model, technology and strategic fit.

Normalized EBITDA: what should really be measured

Before discussing the multiple, it is necessary to determine which EBITDA truly reflects the sustainable earning capacity of the broker.

• non-recurring revenues or costs;
• shareholder remuneration not aligned with market levels;
• personal or extraordinary expenses;
• costs likely to change after the transaction;
• investment required to maintain or scale the business;
• dependency on individual producers or key people;
• synergies, which should be separated from standalone profitability.

Two brokers reporting the same accounting EBITDA may therefore have very different underlying earnings quality.

Portfolio quality and recurring revenue

The composition of revenue is fundamental in insurance brokerage. A portfolio with recurring renewals, strong persistence, diversified clients and stable carrier relationships is generally more predictable than one dependent on episodic production or a few key relationships.

Relevant metrics include:

• share of recurring revenue;
• portfolio retention;
• renewal rate;
• client concentration;
• carrier concentration;
• producer concentration;
• retail, corporate, specialty and affinity mix;
• historical stability of commissions.

Retention and concentration

Two brokers with the same EBITDA can have materially different risk profiles.

One business may have a highly diversified and stable client base. Another may generate the same margin from a small number of large clients, producers or carrier relationships.

The answer has a direct impact on valuation quality.

Organic growth and commercial capability

Organic growth is one of the clearest indicators of industrial quality. Buyers increasingly differentiate businesses able to generate sustainable new production from businesses that preserve results mainly through acquisitions, price effects or isolated relationships.

A broker with repeatable organic growth offers an investor something fundamentally different from a business whose EBITDA is static or acquisition-dependent.

Specialization and market positioning

Specialization can materially increase strategic value. Professional verticals, specific industries, affinity programs, specialty risks, employee benefits or difficult-to-replicate technical capabilities can make a broker attractive beyond its current EBITDA.

Founder dependency and management continuity

Insurance distribution is relationship-driven. If clients, staff, carrier relationships and know-how depend almost entirely on the founder, historical EBITDA may not be fully transferable.

Key issues include:

• strength of the second management line;
• commercial autonomy of producers;
• delegation and decision-making structure;
• shareholder retention after closing;
• succession planning;
• retention of key people;
• duration and structure of the transition period.

Technology, compliance and integration readiness

A broker that can be integrated efficiently may have greater industrial value than one requiring a long normalization process.

Areas to assess include:

• data quality;
• management systems;
• interoperability and APIs;
• reporting quality;
• administrative processes;
• distribution compliance;
• document traceability;
• cybersecurity;
• dependency on proprietary tools or individual staff members.

Price, earn-out and transaction structure

The economic value of a transaction is not necessarily the headline price.

It is important to distinguish between:

• upfront consideration;
• deferred payments;
• earn-outs;
• rollover equity;
• reinvested equity;
• warranties and indemnities;
• retention bonuses;
• stay arrangements;
• purchase-price adjustments.

A high quoted multiple may contain a significant contingent component, while a lower headline multiple may represent substantially more guaranteed cash at closing.

How much are insurance brokers worth?

Public market commentary provides useful benchmarks, but it does not support one single reliable “Italian average multiple” for all brokers.

European market sources have indicated that high-quality platform businesses can reach materially higher EBITDA multiples than smaller or less integrated intermediaries. These figures should not be applied mechanically to the Italian market: size, growth, specialization, revenue quality, management and deal structure can produce very different outcomes.

A more robust valuation framework is:

For ASSINOVA, the core principle is simple:

Why two brokers with the same EBITDA can be worth different amounts

Consider two brokers, each generating €1 million of EBITDA.

The first has:

• consistent organic growth;
• a diversified portfolio;
• high retention;
• autonomous management;
• recognized specialization;
• systems and data that are easy to integrate.

The second has:

• concentrated revenues;
• strong founder dependency;
• limited organic growth;
• a less scalable administrative structure;
• poor data quality;
• significant post-closing investment requirements.

The two businesses should not have the same value. This is precisely the distinction that an industrial due diligence should identify before negotiating the multiple.

The Italian market context

Italian insurance distribution is going through a period of accelerated consolidation and industrial transformation. The market remains relationship-driven and fragmented, while investors and consolidators increasingly focus on scale, specialization and integration quality.

This creates opportunity, but it also makes valuation more complex: a long list of targets is not enough. Buyers need to understand which businesses are transferable, scalable and strategically coherent.

The ASSINOVA thesis

ASSINOVA views valuation not as a purely financial exercise, but as an integrated assessment of the business.

For an intermediary, this means understanding:

• what value has really been created;
• which factors support that value;
• which weaknesses can reduce it;
• which actions can increase value before a transaction.

For an investor, it means distinguishing between:

Valuation therefore becomes the link between financial analysis, portfolio quality, people, technology, integration capability and transaction structure.

Quality comes before the multiple. The industrial thesis comes before the price.

Related insight

Read also: Insurance M&A and Consolidation in Italy

Sources

• MarshBerry — Insurance Broker M&A Valuation Gap
• MarshBerry — From Deal Volume to Deal Quality
• MarshBerry — European Insurance Distribution M&A
• MarshBerry — Italian Insurance Distribution M&A Q1 2026
• Deloitte Italy — Insurance distribution M&A
• IVASS — Annual Report 2025