Australia guides

SDE vs EBITDA: which one values your business?

EBITDA and SDE both measure what a business earns before financing and accounting choices distort the picture. The difference that matters is a single line: SDE adds back the wage of one owner-operator, because a buyer who works in the business replaces that person, while EBITDA leaves that wage in the costs because it assumes someone is paid to do the job. Smaller owner-run businesses are usually quoted on SDE and larger, manager-run ones on EBITDA, but that dividing line is a market convention rather than a rule. Whichever figure you use, the multiple has to match it: applying an EBITDA multiple to an SDE figure overstates value.

By the bizflip team · Published 2 September 2026 · Facts checked 2 September 2026 · Sources listed below

Both figures answer the same question — what does this business actually earn? — for two different buyers. EBITDA describes what a business earns for someone who will pay another person to run it. SDE describes what a business earns for someone who will run it themselves. Nearly every other difference between the two follows from that.

What each figure is

Neither figure appears as a line on your tax return or your profit and loss statement. Both are constructed, and both are only as good as the adjustments the person constructing them can evidence. In Australian practice you will also meet PEBITDA, or proprietor earnings, which is an owner-earnings measure that sits in much the same place as SDE. Terminology varies between advisers; the underlying question does not.

The difference that matters is one owner's wage

An Australian valuation adviser frames the choice as a question about what the buyer is purchasing: an investment, or a job. A buyer purchasing an investment pays for an earnings stream that survives a change of management, and that points to EBITDA — the cost of management stays inside the cost base, because someone has to be paid to do the work. A buyer purchasing a job pays for a role plus whatever profit is left over, and that points to an owner-earnings measure such as SDE.

EBITDASDE
What it answersWhat the business earns for an owner who does not work in itWhat one full-time owner-operator gets from working in it
One owner-operator's wageStays in the costsAdded back in full
An owner paid above market rateOnly the excess over a market wage is added backThe whole package is added back
Likely buyerAn investor, a trade acquirer, or anyone who will hire a managerAn individual who will work in the business
Size of the resulting numberLowerHigher, by roughly one owner's total package
Multiple that goes with itHigherLower, because the earnings figure is bigger

Which one applies to your business

The metric usually follows the buyer pool rather than the size of the business. Owner-operated businesses tend to be quoted on owner earnings, because the people bidding are underwriting their own income and workload. Businesses with a genuine management layer tend to be quoted on EBITDA, because the people bidding are underwriting a transferable earnings stream. The awkward cases sit in the middle: profitable Australian SMEs that are still heavily dependent on the owner, where a buyer will want both an owner-earnings view and a costing of what replacing the owner would take.

Dollar cut-offs do get quoted, and they are conventions from market practice rather than anything in a standard. One United States brokerage states its rule of thumb plainly: most businesses under US$1 million in earnings are valued on seller's discretionary earnings, most at US$1.5 million and above on EBITDA, and businesses in between can use either. Read that as a description of where the buyer pool changes hands, not as a threshold that transfers to an Australian business. A business earning $400,000 a year with a full-time general manager in place is an EBITDA business. A business earning $900,000 a year with the owner working six days a week is not.

A wrinkle that catches Australian sole traders and partnerships

If you trade as a sole trader or in a partnership, there is no owner's wage in your accounts to add back. The ATO is explicit about this: as a sole trader you are the business owner and not an employee of your business, so you cannot pay yourself a salary or wage, and any nominal payment of one is treated as a distribution of profit. The same applies to a partner in a partnership. Your reported net profit therefore already includes the value of your own labour, uncosted.

A company that employs its own director is the opposite case: the wage sits in the accounts as an expense, so an SDE calculation adds it back and an EBITDA calculation leaves it there. Two businesses trading identically can show very different profit lines purely because of structure. That is one of the reasons a buyer normalises earnings before comparing anything, and why a profit figure quoted without saying how the owner is paid tells you almost nothing.

The add-back has to survive a buyer's question

The most common problem in owner-operated valuations is the owner adding back their entire wage without asking whether the buyer will have to replace some or all of that work after settlement. It overstates maintainable earnings, and it tends to surface during due diligence rather than before it — which is the expensive moment to find out.

The correction is a replacement salary analysis. Write down what the owner actually does week to week, map it to the roles the market would hire for, and price those roles at market rates. If the owner is the general manager, the lead salesperson and the estimator, replacing them may take more than one person or a larger package than the owner expects. Cost the package rather than the base wage: from 1 July 2025 an employer must pay superannuation guarantee contributions of at least 12% of an employee's ordinary time earnings, and that sits on top of the salary before you count leave, payroll tax or recruitment.

Handled properly, the two routes tend to converge. An owner-earnings figure less a realistic replacement salary usually lands close to a properly adjusted EBITDA, because both are trying to reach the same defensible level of maintainable earnings from different starting assumptions. When they are far apart, one set of adjustments is doing work it cannot justify.

Never mix the figure and the multiple

SDE is the larger number for the same business, so it carries the smaller multiple. EBITDA is the smaller number and carries the larger one. Applying an EBITDA multiple to an owner-earnings figure is, as one Australian valuer puts it, among the fastest ways to overstate a value — and it is an easy mistake to make, because published multiples are quoted without always naming the earnings base they were measured against.

So when someone quotes you a multiple, the first question is which earnings figure it was measured against, and the second is whether that figure was normalised the way yours has been. Transactions priced on EBITDA and transactions priced on owner earnings both exist, and they cannot be compared directly until the earnings base is reconciled. Our guide to valuation multiples by industry sets out the Australian ranges and what moves them.

Working out your own figure

None of this is tax or legal advice, and the right treatment of a particular add-back can depend on your structure and your circumstances. Your accountant is the person to confirm how your own numbers should be presented.

The metric is not the argument. A buyer is deciding how confident they are that today's earnings keep arriving after you leave — SDE and EBITDA are just two ways of writing down the same starting number.

Sources

Every load-bearing claim in this guide, and where it comes from:

Ready for your own number? The valuation calculator is free and ungated, and its methodology is public.