2015 Pacific Crest Private SaaS Company Survey Results. October 16, 2015

Transcription

1 2015 Pacific Crest Private SaaS Company Survey Results October 16,

2 Pacific Crest 2015 Private SaaS Company Survey: Summary of Results This report provides an analysis of the results of a survey of private SaaS companies which Pacific Crest s software investment banking team conducted in June-July 2015 Represents the sixth such survey Pacific Crest has completed The survey results include responses from senior executives of 305 companies. Special thanks to our partners at Matrix Partners, who helped solicit participants through the forentrepeneurs blog Broad diversity of SaaS companies participated. Representative statistics on the participant pool: $4MM median revenues, with 133 companies >$5MM and 57 >$25MM 47 median full-time employees (range of 2 to 1,200) Median customer count of approximately 300; 28% of respondents have >1,000 customers 70% of participants headquartered in the U.S. $21K median annual contract value (ACV), with 21% of participants below $5K and 17% above $100K. Good mix of field sales (41% use as predominant mode), inside sales (21%), as well as Internet, channel, and mixed modes Our goal is to provide useful operational and financial benchmarking data to executives and investors in SaaS companies 2

3 Survey Participant Geography (HQ) U.S. Regions Northern California Silicon Valley Southern California 14 Boston / New England Pacific Northwest 13 New York Metropolitan Area 19 Washington DC 11 Southeast U.S. 26 Midwest / Chicago Colorado / Utah 6 Texas 10 Other U.S. 6 TOTAL U.S. : % international, up from 21% last year. Other Locations Canada 19 Europe 40 Middle East / Africa 3 Latin America 6 Australia / New Zealand 13 Asia 13 TOTAL Non-U.S. : respondents 3

4 Number of Companies Number of Companies Survey Participant Size Distribution Median $4MM Revenue <$750k $750k- $2.5MM $2.5MM- $5MM $5MM- $10MM $10MM- $15MM $15MM- $25MM 2014 Revenue $25MM- $40MM $40MM- $60MM $60MM- $100MM Greater than $100MM FTEs Median < Full-Time Equivalent Employees 299 and 302 respondents, respectively 4

5 Median 2014 GAAP Revenue per FTE Revenue per FTE Efficiency $250k $230k $200k $188k $150k $164k $143k $143k (Excl. <$2.5MM) Median $142K $125k $125k $129k Median $112K $100k Less than $100k $50k $0k <$2.5MM $2.5MM- $5MM $5MM- $10MM $10MM- $15MM $15MM- $25MM $25MM- $40MM Sized Company (2014 Revenue) $40MM- $60MM $60MM- $100MM Greater than $100MM Respondents: <$750k: 74; $750k-$2.5MM: 59; $2.5MM-$5MM: 35; $5MM-$10MM: 32; $10MM-$15MM: 17; $15MM-$25MM: 26; $25MM-$40MM: 17; $40MM-$60MM: 13; $60MM-$100MM: 12; >$100MM: 12 5

6 GROWTH RATES 6

7 Number of Companies How Fast Did / Will You Grow GAAP Revenues? The median revenue growth achieved by survey respondents in 2014 was 44%, while the median projected growth for 2015 is 46% Median 2014 GAAP Rev Growth 44% Median 2015E GAAP Rev Growth 46% These results are markedly up from medians of 37% and 42% growth for 2013 and 2014E, respectively, reported in last year s survey, and closer to the 2013 survey results (41% and 47% for 2012 and 2013E growth, respectively) <0% 0%-10% 10%-20% 20%-30% 30%-40% 40%-50% 50%-60% 60%-80% 80%-100% >100% 2014 GAAP Revenue Growth 2015E GAAP Revenue Growth 293 and 289 respondents, respectively 7

8 How Fast Did / Will You Grow GAAP Revenues? (Excluding Companies <$2.5MM in Revenue) Number of Companies As expected, many of the fastest growers are among the smallest companies. Eliminating them brings median growth rates down approximately 10% points Median 2014 GAAP Rev Growth 36% Median 2015E GAAP Rev Growth 36% <0% 0%-10% 10%-20% 20%-30% 30%-40% 40%-50% 50%-60% 60%-80% 80%-100% >100% 2014 GAAP Revenue Growth 2015E GAAP Revenue Growth 169 and 166 respondents, respectively 8

9 2014 Revenue Growth Rate Median Growth Rate as a Function of Size of Company (Excluding Companies <$2.5MM in Revenue) 80% The results indicate that companies in the $5-$7.5MM range are among the fastest growers with the median much greater than the median of companies half their size. 70% 60% 50% 43% 70% 40% 36% 36% 35% Median 36% 30% 29% 31% 31% 20% We saw a similar phenomenon of a bumpup last year for companies at this size, although our data was not as finely segregated (the bump-up group was $5-$10MM). 10% 0% $2.5MM- $5MM $5MM- $7.5MM $7.5MM- $10MM $10MM- $15MM $15MM- $25MM $25MM- $40MM $40MM- $75MM >$75MM 2014 GAAP Revenue Respondents: $2.5MM-$5MM: 35, $5MM-$7.5MM: 18, $7.5MM-$10MM: 14, $10MM-$15MM: 17, $15MM-25MM: 26, $25MM- $40MM: 18, $40MM-$75MM: 19, >$75MM: 20 9

10 Median Growth Rate as a Function of Size of Company Middle Third Group (Excluding Companies <$2.5MM in Revenue) 2014 Revenue Growth Rate Looking at the middle third of respondents in each size group suggests that the $2.5-$5MM companies are also among the fastest growers. 100% 90% 80% 70% 87% 84% 73% 60% 61% 52% 50% 46% 43% 40% 38% 38% 30% Median 36% 20% 27% 23% 23% 24% 26% 27% 21% 10% 0% $2.5MM - $5MM $5MM- $7.5MM $7.5MM- $10MM $10MM- $15MM $15MM- $25MM $25MM- $40MM $40MM- $75MM >$75MM 2014 GAAP Revenue Highlighted range represents the 33rd-67th percentile of data Respondents: $2.5MM-$5MM: 35, $5MM-$7.5MM: 18, $7.5MM-$10MM: 14, $10MM-$15MM: 17, $15MM-25MM: 26, $25MM- $40MM: 18, $40MM-$75MM: 19, >$75MM: 20 10

11 Median Growth Rate as a Function of Contract Size (Excluding Companies <$2.5MM in Revenue) 2014 Revenue Growth 70% There appears to be no relationship between median contract size and growth other than a bump-up for the $100K- $250K group (though this could be skewed by sparse data in that group). 60% 50% 40% 36% 38% 62% Median 36% (2) 37% 33% 33% 33% 30% 20% Last year, the bump-up occurred for companies in the ranges encompassing $5K-$100K ACV. 10% 0% <$5K $5K-$15K $15K-$25K $25K-$50K $50K-$100K $100K-$250K >$250K Median Contract Size (ACV) (1) (1): Annual Contract Value (ACV) is defined as annualized monthly run rate in recurring SaaS revenues, excluding professional services, perpetual licenses and related maintenance (2): Discrepancy from 35% median on slide 7; smaller set of respondents who answered both questions Respondents: <$5K: 20, $5K-$25K: 24, $25K-$100K: 44, $100K-$250K: 14, >$250K: 16 11

12 2014 Growth Rate Median Growth Rate as a Function of Sales Strategy (Excluding Companies <$2.5MM in Revenue) We found that median growth among field sales dominated companies slightly lagged inside sales dominated companies (by 6% points), but led internet sales by 8% points. Channel sales dominated companies grew significantly faster, though the data is sparse. Mixed also performed well. 70% 60% 50% 40% 37% 65% 43% Median 35% 30% 31% 23% 20% 10% Previous Surveys Field sales lagged inside sales by a greater amount this year (6% in 2015 vs. an insignificant 2% difference in 2014). 0% Field sales Inside sales Internet sales Channel Sales (VARs, OEMs, etc) Primary Mode of Distribution (1) Mixed (1): Primary Mode of Distribution At least 50% of new ACV bookings from new customers in 2015E come from designated distribution channel; Mixed defined as respondents who didn t select at least 50% for any designated distribution channel Respondents: Field: 66, Inside:35, Internet: 8, Channel: 8, Mixed: 46 12

13 2014 Growth Rate Median Growth Rate as a Function of Target Customer (1) Median Revenue Growth 44% Companies with mixed/balanced target customer strategies are growing the fastest. Otherwise, at least for companies >$2.5MM in revenues, there aren t significant differences. 70% 60% 50% 40% 63% Median Revenue Growth (excl. <$2.5MM Revenue) 36% 57% 48% 43% 38% 33% 33% 30% 28% A big change for the mixed group. Last year s survey showed no advantage for mixed / balanced target customer companies. 20% 10% 0% VSB SMB Enterprise Mixed All Companies Excluding Companies <$2.5MM in Revenue (1): Target Customer At least 50% of revenues come from designated customer base; Mixed defined as respondents who didn t select at least 50% for any designated customer base VSB customers defined as <20 employees, SMB as ~100-1,000 employees, and enterprise as >1,000 Respondents: VSB: 18 and 7, SMB: 67 and 36, Enterprise: 97 and 68, Mixed: 105 and 53, respondents, respectively 13

14 GO-TO-MARKET 14

15 Primary Mode of Distribution Field sales remains the most popular way to sell, with 41% of participants employing it as their primary mode of distribution (32% if we exclude companies with <$2.5MM in revenues). Mixed 28% All Companies Field Sales 41% Mixed 30% Excluding Companies <$2.5MM in Revenue Field Sales 32% Channel 5% Internet Sales 5% Inside Sales 21% Channel 6% Internet Sales 10% Inside Sales 22% Results were very similar to last year, with a slight shift away from inside sales strategies towards mixed distribution models. Primary Mode of Distribution At least 50% of new ACV bookings from new customers in 2015E come from designated distribution channel; Mixed defined as respondents who didn t select at least 50% for any designated distribution channel 292 and 163 respondents, respectively 15

16 Primary Mode of Distribution as a Function of Median Initial Contract Size Analyzed by contract value, field sales dominates for companies with median deals over $50K and more or less disappears when median deal sizes are below $15K. There s meaningful bifurcation among the $15K- $25K and $25K- $50K groups. Results are very similar to last year, except for companies with median ACVs over $250K, where in this year s results, we see noticeably more companies using inside sales. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Field Inside Internet Channel Mixed 18% 23% 23% 24% 31% 35% 37% 41% 5% 8% 10% 5% 3% 8% 8% 10% 4% 3% 24% 7% 3% 46% 19% 77% 45% 34% 62% 27% 52% 45% 15% 17% 8% 11% 13% <$1k $1k-$5k $5k-$15k $15k-$25k $25k-$50k $50k-$100k $100k-$250k >$250k Median Contract Size (ACV) Note: Initial ACV of a contract 2015 Respondents: <$1K: 13, $1K-$5K: 37, $5K-$15K: 40, $15K-$25K: 29, $25K-$50K: 38, $50K-$100K: 27, $100K-$250K: 22, >$250K: 13 16

17 Distribution Strategy Analysis of Field vs. Inside Sales in Key Crossover Deal Size Tiers (Excluding Companies <$2.5MM in Revenue) Among companies selling $15K-$50K ACV, we compared those favoring field vs. inside and found: (1) larger companies tended to favor field; (2) inside sales driven companies had slightly higher efficiency, as reflected in $/FTE, however CAC, S&M expense ratios and growth were virtually identical; and (3) gross churn was higher for inside, but net dollar retention was also higher, suggesting more success with land-and-expand. $15K-$50K Median Contract Size Field-Dominated Inside-Dominated Revenue $20MM $11MM Growth Rate 28% 29% Revenue per FTE $117K $131K Annual Gross Dollar Churn (1) 7% 12% Net Dollar Retention Rate (1) 106% 115% CAC (1) $1.09 $1.04 S&M % of Revenue 41% 41% (1) See definitions described later in this presentation Respondents: Field-Dominated: 11; Inside-Dominated: 9 17

18 CAC (1) : How Much Do You Spend for $1 of New ACV from a New Customer? (Excluding Companies <$2.5MM in Revenues) How much do you spend on a fully-loaded sales & marketing cost basis to acquire $1 of new ACV from a new customer? Respondents (excluding the smallest companies) spent a median of $1.18 to acquire each dollar of new ACV from a new customer. The result drops to $1.06 if we include companies with <$2.5MM in revenues. Over $3.00 $2.00-$3.00 $1.50-$2.00 $1.25-$1.50 $1.00-$1.25 $0.75-$ Median $1.18 $0.50-$ The median result is notably higher than the $1.07 and $0.92 reported in the 2014 and 2013 surveys, respectively. $0.25-$0.50 Less than $ (1): Includes the fully-loaded amount spent on sales & marketing for the win, over multiple periods, if necessary. 142 respondents 18

19 CAC on New Customers vs. Upsells vs. Renewals (Excluding Companies <$2.5MM in Revenues) The median CAC per $1 of upsells is $0.28, or about 24% of CAC to acquire each new customer dollar. The CAC for renewals is $0.13, or 11% of the CAC to acquire each new customer dollar. $1.50 $1.25 $1.00 $0.75 $1.18 $ th percentile Median 75 th percentile $0.55 $0.50 $0.28 $0.33 The cost of upsells ($.28) has increased from the $.18 reported in 2014, while the cost of renewals remains almost identical. $0.25 $0.00 New ACV from New Customer $0.11 Upsell to Existing Customer $0.13 $0.07 Renewals Respondents: New ACV from New Customer: 142, Upsell to Existing Customer: 102, Renewals: 97 19

20 CAC Spend by Primary Mode of Distribution As expected, field sales has the most expensive CAC at $1.14, followed by inside sales at $0.90. Channel and online distribution have significantly lower CACs at $0.66 and $0.42, respectively. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% <$0.25 $ $0.50 $ $0.75 $ $1.00 $ $1.25 $ $1.50 $ $2.00 $ >$3.00 Median $1.14 Median $0.90 Median $0.66 Median $ % 40% 30% All modes have shown increases except Internet, which is down from $0.54 to $ % 10% 0% Field Sales Inside Sales Channel Internet Sales Respondents: Field sales: 63, Inside sales: 56, Channel sales: 12, Internet sales: 20 (includes Companies <$2.5MM in revenue) 20

21 % of CAC Sales & Marketing Spend CAC Composition: Sales vs. Marketing Cost % of CAC Overall, the median company devotes 31% of their CAC to Marketing expenses, with the remaining 69% allocated to Sales. However, Inside Sales- and Internet Salesdriven companies have a much greater reliance on Marketing, with 38% and 65% of their CAC budgets devoted to Marketing, respectively. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 31% 25% 69% 75% 25% 38% 75% 62% 38% 62% 65% 35% 65% 35% 0% Field sales Inside Field sales Sales Inside Sales Internet Internet sales Sales Overall Sales Marketing Respondents: 290; Field Sales: 93; Inside Sales: 64; Internet Sales: 28 Note: Overall group also includes Channel Sales and Mixed Strategy dominated companies not shown on graph 21

22 # of Respondents CAC Payback Period (Gross Margin Basis) For the first time we asked about CAC payback period (defined as # of months of subscription gross profit it takes to recover the fully loaded cost of acquiring the customer). Respondents reported a median CAC payback of ~12 months, though we note a wide distribution of responses Median 12 months <3 mos. 3-5 mos. Approx. 6 mos. 7-9 mos mos. Approx. 1 year mos mos. Approx. 18 mos mos mos. Approx years years years >3 years CAC Payback Period 271 respondents 22

23 CAC Payback Period (months) Median CAC Payback Period by Primary Mode of Distribution Field Salesdominated companies have 20% longer CAC payback periods than those primarily using Inside Sales, which in turn have approximately 20% longer CAC payback periods than those relying primarily on Internet Sales Field sales Inside sales Internet sales Channel Mixed Distribution Type All Companies Excluding Companies <$2.5MM in Revenue Respondents: All Companies: Field sales: 84, Inside sales: 61, Channel sales: 15, Internet sales: 24, Mixed: 83 (includes Companies <$2.5MM in revenue) Respondents (>$2.5MM Revenue): Field sales: 60, Inside sales: 33, Internet sales: 7, Channel sales: 7, Mixed: 44 23

24 What Percentage of New ACV is from Upsells to Existing Customers? % New ACV from Upsells The median respondent gets 16% of new ACV sales from upsells; larger companies rely more heavily on upsells. 35% 30% 32% 28% 25% 21% 20% 15% 15% 14% 17% 16% Median 16% 10% 11% 5% Largely consistent with prior years results. 0% <$1.25M $1.25MM - $2.5MM $2.5MM - $5MM $5MM - $15MM $15MM - $25MM 2014 GAAP Revenue $25MM - $40MM $40MM - $75MM >$75MM Respondents: <$1.25MM: 71, $1.25MM-$2.5MM: 19, $2.5MM-$5MM: 23, $5MM-$15MM: 35, $15MM-25MM: 22, $25MM-$40M: 15, $40MM-$75M: 17, >75MM: 15 24

25 Are the Fastest Growing Companies Relying More on Upsells? Yes % New ACV from Upsells Almost across the board, the fastest growers tended to have noticeably more reliance on upsells. What Percentage of New ACV is from Upsells to Existing Customers? 40% 37% 35% 30% 27% 25% 25% 23% 23% 20% 15% 13% 18% 18% 17% 15% 16% 13% Median 16% 10% 9% 8% 2014 showed a similar result for companies above $10MM but not below. Now the fastest growing smaller companies are also focusing on upsells. 5% 0% <$2.5MM $2.5MM to $5MM $5MM to $10MM Bottom 50% Growers $10MM to $15MM 2014 GAAP Revenue $15MM to $25MM Top 50% Growers $25MM to $40MM >$40MM Respondents: <$2.5MM: 86, $2.5MM-$5MM: 23, $5MM-$10MM: 23, $10MM-$15MM: 12, $15MM-25MM: 22 $25MM-$40M: 15, >$40MM: 32 25

26 Professional Services Impact on Go-to-Market (Excluding Companies <$2.5MM in Revenue) Professional services play a minor role for most, with the median company booking P.S. revenues on new deals equivalent to 18% of first year subscription contract value. Median P.S. margins are approx. 20%. >200% % % % Professional Services (as % of 1 st year ACV) >50% 40-50% 30-40% 25-30% 20-25% 10-20% Professional Services Margin Median 20% 50-75% % 15 0% 16 Median attach rates are up, from 13% in the 2014 survey to 18% this year. Margins are unchanged % 10-25% 0-10% 21 Median 18% (1%)-(5%) (5%)-(15%) 35 (15%)-(25%) 45 < (25%) and 128 respondents, respectively 26

27 Professional Services (% of 1 st Year ACV) as a Function of Target Customer (Excluding Companies <$2.5MM in Revenue) Professional Services % of 1st Year ACV As expected, companies which are focused mainly on enterprise sales have higher levels of professional services. 30% 25% 20% 26% 18% 18% Median 18% 15% 10% 11% Attach rates ticked up significantly across the board (2014 survey: Enterprise 18%, SMB 8%, VSB 6%, Mixed 9%). 5% 0% Enterprise SMB VSB Mixed Target Customer Respondents: Enterprise: 52, SMB: 27, VSB: 3, Mixed: 40 27

28 Subscription Gross Margins What is your gross profit margin on just subscription/saas revenues? Median subscription gross margins are 78% (nearly identical when removing the smallest companies from the group). >90% 85-90% 80-85% 75-80% Median 78% 70-75% % % % 11 Virtually unchanged from the 2014, 2013 and 2012 results % <50% respondents 28

29 Freemium / Try Before You Buy Approximately 30% of companies derive some amount of new ACV from freemium strategies, though virtually no one drives their business on it. Try Before You Buy is much more commonly used: 60% derive revenues through this strategy, and 30% derive the majority of their new ACV through Try Before You Buy. Very consistent results with previous years. New ACV 0-10% New ACV 10-25% 13% New ACV > 25% 5% Freemium Expected New ACV in 2014 from Freemium Leads 9% 73% New ACV None New ACV > 50% New ACV 10-50% Try Before You Buy Expected New ACV in 2014 from Try Before You Buy Leads 30% 19% 13% 39% New ACV 0-10% New ACV None 255 and 281 respondents, respectively 29

30 Number of Respondents Sales Commissions Median Commission Paid 9% The median reported sales commission rate for the group is approx. 9% of ACV Overall consistent with 2014, 2013 and 2012 results, though granular bucketing of potential survey responses this year resulted in additional detail % 1-3% 3-5% 5-6% 6-7% 7-8% 8-9% 9-10% 10-11% 11-12% 12-13% 13-15% 15-17% 17+% Sales Commission (As % of ACV) 255 Respondents 30

31 Number of Respondents Sales Commissions by Sales Strategy The survey results indicate that median sales commission rates are only slightly higher for Field Sales versus Inside Sales Median Inside Commission Paid 8.9% 24 Median Field Commission Paid 9.5% Similar to 2014 survey results, though granular bucketing of potential survey responses this year resulted in additional detail % 1-3% 3-5% 5-6% 6-7% 7-8% 8-9% 9-10% 10-11% 11-12% 12-13% 13-15% 15-17% 17+% Sales Commission (As % of ACV) Field Inside Respondents: Field : 111, Inside: 72 31

32 Median Sales Commission Sales Commissions as a Function of Median Contract Size There was a high degree of consistency in commission rates across contract sizes. 12% 10% 9% 10% 10% 9.5% 9.5% Median 9% 8% 8% 6% 4% 2% In 2014, Elephant hunters (>$250k median ACV) had materially lower commission rates (7%). We note that the 2015 results are consistent with results from two years ago. 0% <$1K $1K-$5K $5K-$25K $25K-$100K $100K-$250K >$250k Median Contract Size (ACV) Respondents: <$1K: 8, $1K-$5K: 34, $5K-$25K: 64, $25K-$100K: 59, $100K-$250K: 21, >$250K: 13 32

33 Commissions for Renewals, Upsells and Multi-Year Deals Not surprisingly, commissions on renewals are typically deeply discounted, with a median rate of 2%. Upsells command a median rate of 8%, and nearly half of the companies pay full commissions on upsells. Renewals Median Commission Rate on Renewals % of Respondents Paying 0-1% on Renewals 2% 42% Upsells Median Commission Rate on Upsells 8% % of Respondents Paying Full Commission (1) 45% Additional Commission for Extra Years on Initial Contract % of Respondents Paying: No Additional Commission 32% Nominal Kicker 26% Full Commission 20% The most significant changes this year include: 1) Upsells: this year just 45% paid full commission rates on upsells, vs. 58% in last year s group; 2) This year just 32% paid no additional commission on longer term contracts vs. 42% in last year s group. (1) Same rate (or higher) than new sales commissions Respondents: Renewals: 224, Upsells: 233, Extra Years on Initial Contract:

34 Gross Dollar Churn % Effect of Renewal Commission Rates on Gross Dollar Churn (Excluding Companies <$2.5MM in Revenue) One natural question to ask is whether companies which pay higher commissions on renewals experience lower churn. The following chart suggests that there is little correlation between commissions on renewals and gross churn. 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 6% 3% 8% 6% 8% 7% Median 6% (1) 2% 1% 0% 0-1% 1-3% 3-5% 5-7% 7-9% >9% Commissions on Renewals (1) The difference in medians compared to pg. 52 is due to different samples. Respondents: 0-1%: 35, 1-3%: 35, 3-5%: 13, 5-7%: 10, 7-9%: 5, >9%: 8 34

35 Median Growth Rate as a Function of Commissions on Renewals (Excluding Companies <$2.5MM in Revenue) 2014 Revenue Growth Companies offering 7% or greater commissions on renewals have experienced the highest growth rate. 70% 60% 50% 57% 40% 33% 38% 33% Median 35% 30% 27% 20% 10% 0% 0-1% 1-3% 3-5% 5-7% >7% Commissions on Renewals Respondents: 0-1%: 52, 1-3%: 43, 3-5%: 15, 5-7%: 11, >7%: 15 35

36 OPERATIONAL ASPECTS 36

37 How is Your SaaS Application Delivered? We asked participants to provide information on their primary application delivery method (in-house or third-party) and how they expect that to change over the next three years. Over 60% already use 3 rd parties predominantly (twothirds of which is AWS); expectations for the future show little change. Azure 3% Salesforce1 5% Other Third Party 16% Now Self- Managed Servers 37% Azure 6% Salesforce1 4% 3 Years from Now Other Third Party 11% Self- Managed Servers 35% The trend toward using 3 rd party public cloud is huge self-managed is down from 52% last year to 37% this year! Amazon Web Services (AWS) 40% Amazon Web Services (AWS) 44% Respondents: Now: 282 respondents, 3 Years from Now: 280 respondents 37

38 SaaS Application Delivery Method (1) as a Function of Size of Company When filtered by company size, smaller respondents reported more frequent use of third-party providers as their primary application delivery method, while the largest companies were more likely to use self-managed servers. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% We see a shift away from self-managed at every level. 10% 0% Less than $1.25MM $1.25MM to $2.5MM $2.5MM to $5MM $5MM to $10MM $10MM to $15MM $15MM to $25MM $25MM to $40MM Greater than $40MM Self-Managed Servers Amazon Web Services (AWS) Salesforce1 Microsoft Azure Other Third Party (1): Defined as predominant mode of delivery Respondents: Less than $1.25MM: 96, $1.25MM-$2.5MM: 27, $2.5MM-$5MM: 34, $5MM-$10MM: 30, $10MM-$15MM: 14, $15MM-$25MM: 25, $25MM-$40MM: 17, Greater than $40MM: 36, respectively 38

39 2014 Revenue Growth Rate Comparison of Growth Rates for Companies Managing Their Own Servers vs. Using 3 rd Parties Companies that delivered their applications through third - party managed servers generally experienced faster growth rates (in some cases considerably faster) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 60% 82% 23% 67% 38% 68% 36% 31% 32% 28% 43% 33% 33% 52% Third-Party Median 47% Self-Managed Median 32% 10% 0% <$2.5MM $2.5MM to $5MM $5MM to $10MM $10MM to $15MM 2014 GAAP Revenue $15MM to $25MM $25MM to $40MM >$40MM Self Managed Third-Party Respondents: <$2.5MM: 24 and 92, $2.5MM-$5MM: 11 and 23, $5MM-$10MM: 14 and 16, $10MM-$15MM: 6 and 8, $15MM-$25MM: 13 and 12, $25MM-$40MM: 8 and 9, >$40MM: 26 and 10, respectively 39

40 2014 Application Delivery Cost as % of Revenue What Are Your Operational Costs to Deliver the SaaS Application? Respondents relying primarily on self-managed servers reported a median delivery cost of 6% of sales, comparable to those primarily using AWS. The median cost of delivery for respondents on Salesforce1 was considerably higher at 16%. 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 16% Significantly more expensive, but see following analysis suggesting comparable overall costs 6% 6% 6% 5% Median 6% 4% 4% 2% Largely consistent with 2014 results. 0% Self-Managed Servers Amazon Web Services (AWS) Salesforce1 Microsoft Azure Other Third Party Respondents: Self-Managed: 86, AWS: 101, Salesforce1: 10, Microsoft Azure: 8, Others: 38 40

41 2014 Subscription Gross Margin Subscription Gross Margin as a Function of SaaS Application Delivery Method Interestingly, despite the aforementioned differences in estimated operational costs, median subscription gross margins were much more closely aligned when filtered by SaaS application delivery method. (Azure aberration is likely due to sparse data). 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 77% 78% 83% 90% 79% Median 78% 30% 20% 10% 0% Self-Managed Servers Amazon Web Services (AWS) Salesforce1 Microsoft Azure Other Third Party Respondents: Self-Managed: 90, AWS: 87, Salesforce1: 12, Microsoft Azure: 5, Others: 35 41

42 2014 Application Delivery Cost as a % of Revenue Operational Costs as a Function of SaaS Application Delivery, Grouped by Size Tiers 12% Somewhat surprisingly, among respondents, a company s size has little impact on delivery costs as a percentage of revenues. 10% 8% 6% 8% 10% 11% 7% 10% 5% 9% 6% 6% 11% 8% 6% 11% Third-Party Median 9% 4% 2% 4% Self- Managed Median 7% In 2014, companies deploying self-managed servers generally faced greater operational costs. 0% <$2.5MM $2.5MM to $5MM $5MM to $10MM $10MM to $15MM 2014 GAAP Revenue Self-Managed Third-Party $15MM to $25MM $25MM to $40MM >$40MM Respondents: <$2.5MM: 22 and 56, $2.5MM-$5MM: 8 and 19, $5MM-$10MM: 10 and 14, $10MM-$15MM: 5 and 5, $15MM-$25MM: 13 and 11, $25MM-$40MM: 5 and 9, >$40MM: 20 and 8, respectively 42

43 COST STRUCTURE 43

44 Cost Structure and Future Expected Operating Leverage (Excluding Companies <$2.5MM in Revenue) The median numbers reflect respondents beliefs that the most operating leverage will come from improvements in gross margin, S&M and R&D. 2015E Median "At Scale" (1) Median Gross Margin 74% 79% Operating Expense Margins: Sales & Marketing 32% 27% R&D 24% 19% G&A 16% 13% EBITDA 1% 17% FCF 3% 17% YoY Growth Rate 31% 25% Very similar results to last year s survey. (1): Note Survey describes scale as $100 million in revenues or higher. Respondents: 2015E Median: 134, At Scale Median: 130, <$2.5MM Median: 95 44

45 Median Cost Structure by Size (Includes Only Companies with >$2.5MM in ACV) All Size of Company (ACV) (1) 2014 Respondents $2.5-$5M $5-$10M $10-$15M $15-$25M $25-$40M >$40M Total Gross Margin 71% 81% 83% 64% 69% 61% 70% Subscription 79% 83% 83% 74% 76% 77% 76% Professional Services 15% 32% 17% 23% 14% 0% 15% Operating Expense Margins: Sales & Marketing 33% 23% 31% 37% 46% 36% 36% R&D 25% 28% 26% 31% 29% 26% 22% G&A 16% 17% 16% 22% 17% 14% 16% EBITDA Margin (5%) 5% 4% (23%) (13%) (20%) (3%) Note that numbers do not add due to the fact that medians were calculated for each metric separately and independently (1): Annual Contract Value (ACV) is defined as total annualized recurring SaaS revenues, excluding professional services, perpetual licenses and related maintenance Respondents: $2.5MM-$5MM: 21, $5MM-$10MM: 26, $10MM-$15MM: 16, $15MM-25MM: 21, $25MM-$40MM: 12, >$40MM: 52 45

46 For Comparison: Historical Results of Selected Public SaaS Companies Total Revenue Run-Rate ~$25MM ~$50MM ~$100MM Median Values Gross Margin 63% 64% 67% Sales & Marketing 47% 44% 44% Research & Development 23% 19% 19% G & A 17% 16% 15% EBIT Margin (29%) (17%) (6%) FCF Margin (10%) (5%) (2%) YoY Revenue Growth Rate (1) 120% 67% 44% (1): YoY Revenue Growth compares against previous year s revenue of the companies at the time Note: Excludes stock-based compensation (SBC) Median includes ALRM, AMBR, APPF, ATHN, BCOV, BNFT, BOX, BV, CNVO, COVS, CRM, CSOD, CTCT, CVT, DMAN, DWRE, ECOM, EOPN, ET, FLTX, HUBS, LOGM, MB, MKTG, MKTO, MRIN, N, NEWR, NOW, OPWR, PAYC, PCTY, PFPT, QLYS, RNG, RNOW, RP, SFSF, SHOP, SPSC, SQI, TLEO, TXTR, VEEV, VOCS, WDAY, WK, XTLY, YDLE and ZEN ~$25M median excludes BNFT, COVS, CVT, FLTX, PAYC, PCTY, QLYS, RNG, RP, VEEV and WDAY ~$50M median excludes RP and TXTR ~$100M median excludes AMBR, APPF, BCOV, DMAN, DWRE, ECOM, EOPN, MB, MKTO, MRIN, PCTY, QLYS, SPSC, SQI, TXTR and XTLY 46

47 Median 2014 Sales & Marketing Spend as % of Revenue Sales & Marketing Spend vs. Growth Rate (Excluding Companies <$2.5MM in Revenue) 45% 41% 41% 42% 43% Not surprisingly, companies which spend more on sales & marketing (as a % of revenue) grew at a faster rate than those which spend less. It is interesting to see a step function at 35% growth, and not much increase in sales & marketing spend required for higher growth rates. 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 33% 24% 28% 27% 28% 26% 38% Median 32% 10% Very similar results to last year s survey. 5% 0% <10% 10-15% 15-20% 20-25% 25-30% 30-35% 35-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-80% >80% 2014 Growth Rate Respondents: <10%: 9, 10-15%: 9, 15-20% : 9, 20-25%: 14, 25-30%: 15, 30-35%: 10, 35-40%: 8, 40-50%: 11, 50-60%: 10, 60-80%: 19, >80%: 19 47

48 CONTRACTING & PRICING 48

49 Median Annual Contract Size (ACV) of a Customer The median initial annual contract size (subscription component only) for the group was $21K per year. Greater than $1MM $250k-$1MM $100k-$250k $50k-$100k 27 $25k-$50k 40 $15k-$25k 24 Median $21K $5k-$15k 50 $1k-$5k 36 Less than $1, These results are in-line with previous survey medians of $21K, $20K and $24K in 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively respondents 49

50 Median / Typical Contract Terms for the Group The median average contract length is 1.5 years; and the median billing term is six months in advance. Average Contract Length Median 1.5 years 2 to 3 years 16% Average Billing Period Median 6 months 1-2+ Years 1% 1 to 2 years 51% 3 years or more 12% 1 Year 43% Monthly 36% Essentially the same median contract length as in the 2014 survey, while the group has shown slightly more aggressive (longer forward) billing (median of 6 months vs. 3 months last year). Less than 1 year 10% Month to month 11% Quarterly to <1 Year 9% Quarterly 11% Respondents: Average Contract Length: 240, Average Billing Period:

51 Average Contract Length Contract Length as a Function of Contract Size The phenomenon of longer contract terms for larger contracts is pretty clear. 100% 90% Month to month Less than 1 year 1 to 2 years 2 to 3 years 3 years or more 80% 70% 60% 50% Companies in the "elephant hunter" group are booking longer term contracts. Respondents with >$250K ACV book 35% of their contracts at 3 years or longer (compared to only 5% in the 2014 group). 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% <$1k $1k-$5k $5k-$25k $25k-$100k $100k-$250k >$250k Median Contract Value (ACV) Respondents: <$1K: 12, $1K-$5K: 36, $5K-$25K: 74, $25K-$100K: 67, $100K-$250K: 18, >$250K: 20 51

52 What is Your Primary Pricing Metric? Other 23% Seats 34% Database size 5% Total employees 6% These results are largely in-line with 2014, 2013 and 2012 results. Sites 8% Usage or transactions 24% Other includes: Data usage, number of apps being tested, volume, customer devices and amount of content 240 respondents 52

53 Annual Unit Churn Annual Unit Churn (1) (Excluding Companies <$2.5MM in Revenue) Reported median annual unit churn (by customer count) is 10% for the group. > 15% % 36 Median 10% 7-9% % 19 This result is slightly higher than the 2014 and 2013 results of 8%. 1-3% (1): Percentage churn of # of paid customers at year-end 2013 that were still customers at year-end respondents 53

54 Annual Gross Dollar Churn Annual Gross Dollar Churn (Excluding Companies <$2.5MM in Revenue) What percentage of total ACV on a dollar basis churns in a given year? (1) Median annual gross dollar churn (without the benefit of upsells) is 7%. The results were virtually the same when including companies <$2.5MM in revenues. >20% 15-20% % % 39 Median 7% This result is in the same range as earlier results (6% in 2014, 8% in 2013, 5% in 2012). <5% (1): Excluding the benefit of upsells 128 respondents 54

55 Annual Gross Dollar Churn as a Function of Contract Length (Excluding Companies <$2.5MM in Revenue) Not surprisingly, companies with very long term contracts (2+ years) have the lowest annual dollar churn. As expected, companies with short-term contracts (<1 year) tend to experience higher churn. 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 8% 12% 7% Median 7% 4% 4% 3% 3% Results are consistent with those from last year; the exception being companies using month to month contracts, which show significantly lower churn rates in this year s survey (8% vs. 13% in the 2014 survey). 2% 0% Month to month 1 year or less 1 to 2 years 2 years 3 years 4+ years Average Contract Length Respondents: Month to Month: 5, Less than 1 year: 30, 1 to 2 years: 49, 2 years: 15, 3 years: 19; 4+ years: 10 55

56 Close-Up: Annual Non-Renewal Rates (1) vs. Gross Churn for Companies with Long-Term Contracts (Excluding Companies <$2.5MM in Revenue) The respondent data would suggest that companies with contract lengths of greater than one year actually experience equivalent, if not greater, nonrenewal rates when only considering dollars up for renewal compared to its peers preferring sub-annual contracts 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 8.8% 7.4% Non-Renewals 9.2% 4.4% Annualized Gross Churn 6.3% 3.1% 10.8% 3.4% Non-Renewal Median for the LT Contract Group 8.3% 2.0% 0.0% 1 to 2 years 2 years 3 years 4+ years Contract Length (1) Annual non-renewal rate is based on only contracts up for renewal in a particular year Respondents: 1 to 2 years: 49, 2 years: 15, 3 years: 19; 4+ years: 10 56

57 Annual Gross Dollar Churn as a Function of Contract Size (Excluding Companies <$2.5MM in Revenue) Gross Dollar Churn As contract sizes increase, gross dollar churn generally trended downwards (mostly related to longer term contracts, presumably). 14% 12% 10% 8% 13% 8% 8% 6% 5% 4% 4% 5% 2% Very similar to previous results. 0% <$1K $1K-$5K $5K-$25K $25K-$100K $100K-$250K >$250K Median Contract Size (ACV) Respondents: <$1K: 4, $1K-$5K: 15, $5K-$25K: 36, $25K-$100K: 36, $100K-$250K: 19, >$250K: 10 57

58 Annual Gross Dollar Churn as a Function of Primary Distribution Mode (Excluding Companies <$2.5MM in Revenue) Annual Gross Dollar Churn Those companies employing primarily field sales had lower churn rates than those employing primarily inside sales or mixed distribution. 15% 10% 11% 8% 8% Median 7% 5% 5% 4% Largely consistent with previous survey results. 0% Field Sales Inside Sales Internet Sales Channel Mixed Respondents: Field Sales: 55, Inside Sales: 24, Internet Sales: 4, Channel Sales: 7, Mixed: 38 58

59 Net Churn (Churn greater than upsells) 100%+ Net Retention (Upsells greater than churn) Annual Net Dollar Retention from Existing Customers How much do you expect your ACV from existing customers to change, including the effect of both churn and upsells? (1) The median annual net dollar retention rates, including churn, but also including the benefit of upsells, is 104%. The result does not change materially when removing the smallest companies (<$2.5MM in revenue) from the group (likely due to longer contracting). >120% % % % ~100% % Median 104% 90-95% % 9 Nominally higher than 2014 (103%) and 2013 (101%) and 2 percentage points lower than 2012 (106%). <80% (1): We define this as the net dollar retention rate 220 respondents 59

60 Comparison of Unit Economic Leaders to All Other Companies (Excluding Companies <$5MM in Revenue) Superior unit economics high lifetime value of customer (LTV) and low CAC are critical success factors. We compared companies with the strongest metrics used to derive LTV and CAC with everyone else, and found some interesting patterns. Unit Economic Leaders ( Subscription GM > 80%; CAC All < $1.50; and Net $ Retention > 100%) Others Business and HQ Vertical 44% 25% End Customer 44% Enterprise 50% Enterprise Revenue Median 2014 Revenue $9MM $23MM % of Companies >$25MM 17% 47% Median Growth Rate 31% 35% Revenue per FTE $138K $151K Primary Distribution Mode - Field Sales Dominated 71% 53% - Inside Sales Dominated 18% 22% Application Delivery - 3rd Party Managed (e.g. AWS, Salesforce, etc.) 53% 48% Median ACV Per Customer $28K $30K Among the Unit Economic Leaders we see: smaller companies, more field dominated selling, more vertical market SaaS companies; smaller component Enterprise end customers; and higher component of upsells. Billing - % Companies Billing 1 Year or More in Advance 47% 44% % New ACV from Upsells 26% 19% Respondents: Unit Economic Leaders: 18, All Others:

61 CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS 61

62 Equity Capital Raised So Far Companies in the survey group have raised a median of roughly $19MM in primary equity capital so far (excluding secondary stock sales). If we exclude companies <$2.5MM, the median jumps up to $32MM. Greater than $50MM $25MM to $50MM $15MM to $25MM Median $32MM (excluding <$2.5MM) Median $19MM $5MM to $15MM 17 Well above the 2014 and 2013 results of $8MM in raised capital. However, these results are similar to the $23MM in capital raised by participants in the 2012 and survey. Less than $5MM Respondents; Everybody: 125; >$2.5M: 91 62

63 Analysis of Companies by Equity Capital Raised Median Amount No. of 2014 GAAP 2015E Raised to Date Respondents Revenue Growth Less than $5MM 35 $2MM 55% $5MM to $15MM 16 $11MM 31% $15MM to $25MM 18 $19MM 33% $25MM to $50MM 22 $20MM 31% Greater than $50MM 29 $40MM 33% The 2015 respondents have much greater revenue traction per dollars raised than previous years groups. 120 respondents 63

64 Capital Efficiency Expectations Median Levels for the Group Actual/expected time and investment required to reach: All Participants Excluding Companies <$2.5MM in Revenue Years Investment Years Investment Target Required Required Required Required $1MM ACV 2 $3MM 2 $3MM $5MM ACV 3 $6MM 4 $6MM $15MM ACV 5 $10MM 6 $13MM $40MM ACV 7 $17MM 8 $24MM Very similar to 2014 and 2013 survey results. 207 and 115 respondents, respectively 64

65 Use of Debt Capital Among Private SaaS Companies % Using Median Debt Median Debt-to-MRR 2014 Revenue Range Debt (1) Level (2) Ratio Less than $5MM 15% $1MM 2.0x MRR $5MM to $10MM 58% $4MM 2.5x MRR $10MM to $15MM 88% $4MM 3.2x MRR $15MM to $25MM 90% $8MM 2.9x MRR $25MM to $40MM 92% $9MM 2.8x MRR Greater than $40MM 100% $20MM 3.6x MRR (1) % of companies with at least $1MM of debt (2) Median among companies with at least $1MM of debt; includes debt outstanding plus availability under existing lines Respondents: Less than $5MM: 43; $5MM to $10MM: 9; $10MM to $15MM: 8; $15MM to $25MM: 20; $25MM to $40MM: 13; Greater than $40MM: 22 65

66 ACCOUNTING POLICIES 66

67 Subscription Revenue Recognition Policies When do you typically begin recognizing subscription revenues on a new contract with a new customer? Approximately 55% of the respondents indicated that they begin recognition very soon (within a week or two) after signing new contracts. It s interesting to see that many companies with significant services were still able to start subscription revenue recognition quickly. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Within a week or two of signing Within a month of signing A few months or more after signing 17% 21% 19% 20% 28% 32% 33% 20% 40% 30% 20% 55% 46% 48% 60% Largely unchanged from previous years results. 10% 0% Whole Group 0-25% 25-75% >75% Professional Services Attach Rate Respondents: 0-25%: 108, 25-75%: 42, >75%: 15 67

68 Professional Services Revenue Recognition Policies What is the predominant mode for recognizing professional services revenues? The clear majority of respondents offering professional services indicated that they recognize that revenue as the services are provided. Deferred over the term of the contract 26% Deferred over the expected life of the customer 6% As the services are provided 68% 203 respondents 68

69 Sales Commission Cost Recognition Policies How do you recognize sales commission costs (deferred or recognized upfront)? We also inquired as to the recognition of sales commission costs. We found two-thirds of respondents indicating that they recognize commission costs up-front. Deferred recognition 28% Recognized upfront 72% 5% increase in recognized upfront from last year s 67%. 214 respondents 69

70 Accounting Policies Across Selected Accounting Firms Subscription Revenue Recognition Professional Services Recognition Sales Commission Recognition Auditor Within a week or two of signing Within a month of signing A few months or more after signing As the service is provided Deferred over life of customer Deferred over contract term Deferred recognition Recognized upfront Deloitte 57% 36% 7% 62% 15% 23% 31% 69% E&Y 59% 27% 14% 68% 0% 32% 15% 85% KPMG 59% 27% 14% 57% 0% 43% 30% 70% PWC 53% 24% 24% 75% 8% 17% 44% 56% BDO 64% 18% 18% 63% 13% 25% 30% 70% Other 52% 30% 18% 67% 7% 27% 25% 75% Total 55% 29% 17% 66% 6% 28% 27% 73% Respondents: Deloitte: 14, E&Y: 24, KPMG: 25, PWC: 18, BDO: 11, Other:

71 PCS Leadership in SaaS and Software Selected Recent Transaction Experience Corporate Finance Advisory YTD Software and SaaS IPOs Rank Firm Deals Value ($MM) $85,560,000 $100,100,000 $150,535,000 1 Pacific Crest Securities 38 $5, Morgan Stanley 30 5, J.P. Morgan 23 4, Goldman Sachs 21 3,830.4 AppFolio (APPF) Initial Public Offering MINDBODY (MB) Initial Public Offering Shopify (SHOP) Initial Public Offering has been acquired by has received an investment from has received an investment from 5 Credit Suisse 21 2, Cannaccord 19 3,135.3 $201,250,000 $115,000,000 $143,750,000 7 Raymond James 18 2,493.2 has been acquired by has been acquired by has been acquired by 8 Deutsche Bank 17 2, JMP Securities 17 2,624.8 Box (BOX) Initial Public Offering Hortonw orks (HDP) Initial Public Offering HubSpot (HUBS) Initial Public Offering 10 Stifel Nicolaus Weisel 17 2, UBS 14 2,956.2 $114,999,993 $114,626,250 $133,073, William Blair & Co 14 1, Needham & Co 12 1,183.4 has been acquired by has divested the Progress Apama Solution to has received an investment from 14 Barclays 10 1, RBC Capital Markets 10 1,206.7 Zendesk (ZEN) Initial Public Offering Paycom Softw are (PAYC) Initial Public Offering 2U (TWOU) Initial Public Offering 16 Bank of America 9 1, Wells Fargo 7 1,856.3 $110,503,887 $300,035,000 $135,240, Allen & Co 6 1, Piper Jaffray & Co has been recapitalized by has been acquired by has been acquired by 20 Oppenheimer & Co Cowen & Co 5 1,376.4 Amber Road (AMBR) Initial Public Offering Veeva Systems (VEEV) Initial Public Offering Cvent (CVT) Initial Public Offering 22 BMO Citi $732,550,000 $104,535,000 $241,155, Lazard Capital Markets has been acquired by has been acquired by has been acquired by 25 First Analysis Workday (WDAY) Initial Public Offering Qualys (QLYS) Initial Public Offering ServiceNow (NOW) Initial Public Offering 71

72 Disclosures Important Disclosures: This report has been prepared by Pacific Crest Securities, a division of KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., herein known as PCS. The material contained herein is based on data from sources considered to be reliable; however, PCS does not guarantee or warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information. It is published for informational purposes only and should not be used as the primary basis of investment decisions. Neither the information nor any opinion expressed constitutes an offer, or the solicitation of an offer, to buy or sell any security. The opinions and estimates expressed reflect the current judgment of PCS and are subject to change without notice. This report may contain forward-looking statements, which involve risk and uncertainty. Actual results may differ significantly from the forward-looking statements. This report is not intended to provide personal investment advice and it does not take into account the specific investment objectives, financial situation and the specific needs of any person or entity. Pacific Crest s specific disclosures can be seen here: Pacific Crest s privacy policy can be seen here: Survey respondents participated anonymously and confidentially. Responses were received through online surveys taken in June-July Pacific Crest cannot verify accuracy of responses. Observations and commentary contained herein relate solely to the survey results and cannot necessarily be applied elsewhere. About Pacific Crest: Pacific Crest Securities provides premier investment banking services for technology, operating at the leading edge, where global connectivity is fueling an unprecedented expansion cycle. We apply our knowledge of the drivers of value creation and global network of relationships to technology high-growth sectors, such as Cloud and big data, SaaS, global internet, mobility, next-gen infrastructure and communications, and industrial and energy technology. As a result, our clients technology s foremost institutional investors and market leading companies rely on us to achieve superior returns and gain competitive advantage from the seismic shifts occurring in technology. Pacific Crest Securities is the technology specialist division of KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., a FINRA registered brokerdealer. Our sector bankers and transactional specialists collaborate to help clients identify and implement the right course of action, whether a financing, M&A or alternative event. Our software clients include Box, Cvent, Eloqua, ExactTarget, FireEye, Fleetmatics, Guidewire Software, Hortonworks, MindBody, Plex, Proofpoint, ServiceNow, SevOne, Splunk, Tableau Software, Veeva Systems, Workday and Zendesk, among others. Pacific Crest Securities has offices in Boston, Charlotte, New York, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle, Stamford, as well as the Beijing Representative Office and Pacific Crest Securities UK, Ltd, London. If you have questions or comments, please contact David Spitz, Managing Director: [email protected]; 72