SaaSGrid is now Grid! Read about our evolution here.
The Rule of 40 is probably the most quoted SaaS benchmark that almost nobody actually clears. It gets treated like table stakes in board decks and pitch meetings, so I wanted to check it against something other than intuition: our own data from more than 130 real SaaS companies.
What we found doesn't throw the rule out, but it does complicate the idea that 40 is some universal bar every healthy company should clear.
The Rule of 40 says a healthy SaaS company's revenue growth rate and profit margin, added together, should equal or exceed 40%. Growth usually means year-over-year ARR growth. Profit margin is usually EBITDA margin, though some use free cash flow margin instead.
The rule traces back to a 2015 blog post by Techstars' Brad Feld, who said he'd picked it up from an unnamed late-stage investor at a board meeting. Feld himself pointed out that it was meant to apply to more mature companies, not brand-new startups still finding product-market fit. Somehow, hat detail tends to always get lost.
The rule shows up everywhere now, applied to companies at every stage, even though it was never really designed for the earliest ones.
The formula for the rule of 40 is simple:
If that number is 40 or higher the company passes, but there's flexibility in how you hit it. A company can be growing fast and burning cash, growing modestly while profitable, or somewhere in between, as long as the two numbers add up.
The part that trips people up isn't the math, it's picking your inputs.
Growth rate is usually straightforward (ARR growth year over year), but profit margin can mean EBITDA margin, free cash flow margin, or even net income margin, and switching between them can move your score meaningfully. Pick one, and use it consistently so you're comparing apples to apples over time.
Take the median company in our own dataset. Its ARR grew 36.1% over the trailing year. It was also spending cash at a rate equal to about 21% of its ARR, so its margin comes in around negative 21%.
That's a Rule of 40 score of 15.1, well under 40. If that company wanted to hit the bar, it could either grow faster, cut its burn rate, or land somewhere in between; say, 30% growth paired with a 10% margin also gets you to 40.
Here's where I want to push back a little on the industry's near-universal reverence for this number, using our own real customer data rather than a hunch.
BCG's 2025 study of over 100 private SaaS companies found that only 9% of companies under $30 million in revenue cleared the Rule of 40, rising to 22% for $30-80 million and 26% for companies above $80 million. Our own dataset, which is weighted toward that same sub-$30 million range, shows a 34.5% pass rate overall, nearly four times BCG's number for companies our size.
Other sources land in different places entirely: ScaleXP's 2026 vertical SaaS data puts the median score around 23-26%, while RevOpsSquared's survey work (cited by The SaaS CFO) puts the median closer to 42. When "the number" swings this much depending on whose data you're reading, treating 40 as a precise, universal line stops making sense. It's a rough heuristic, not a law of physics.
We checked whether companies below 40 in our data were actually in worse cash shape than the ones above it. They're somewhat less likely to be cash-flow neutral, but not by as much as you'd expect: 41% of the companies that fail the Rule of 40 in our data are still cash-flow neutral or generating cash today, compared to 63% of the companies that pass it. If failing the rule automatically meant trouble, that 41% number should be close to zero. It isn't.
As the origin story above makes clear, the Rule of 40 was meant for more mature SaaS businesses, not early-stage ones still working out product-market fit. A lot of the anxiety founders feel about missing 40 comes from applying a later-stage benchmark to an earlier-stage business. That's a mismatch in the tool, not necessarily a problem with the company.
None of this means the Rule of 40 is useless. Directionally, it still captures something real: growth and efficiency both matter, and a company that's weak on both at once probably has a real problem. But treating 40 as a hard pass/fail line, especially early on, gives the number more precision than the data actually supports.
Zoom out and the Rule of 40 tells you less about whether a SaaS company is healthy and more about how much variance there is in what "healthy" even looks like.
Our data shows a wider pass rate than BCG's, a median score less than half the target, and plenty of companies that miss the mark while still sitting on solid cash positions. None of that makes the rule wrong exactly, it just means 40 is a rough signpost, not a grade.
Growth and efficiency both matter, and watching how they move together over time tells you far more than any single snapshot against a threshold someone else picked a decade ago. Use the Rule of 40 as one input among several, not the verdict.
Talk to us to see how Grid can help you track growth, margin, and Rule of 40 for your own business.
Explore Stripe alternatives and find the right fit for billing, payments, and finance workflows as complexity grows.
%20(2).png)
Track the SaaS sales pipeline metrics that actually drive growth while connecting pipeline, retention, and unit economics.
Compare five financial dashboard tools for SaaS teams and see which fits your revenue, reporting, and planning needs best.
Grid eliminates complex data wrangling, providing accurate, comprehensive SaaS metrics so you can focus on strategic growth, not spreadsheets.
