Middle Branch Partners Research August 2026
Where EBITDA Multiples Stand, What’s Driving Them and the AI impact
by Charles Weikel
Partner, Middle Branch Partners
A note on terms: this research uses “medtech” and “medical device” carefully, because the multiples attached to each differ. See the points below before the numbers.
Medtech dealmaking has roared back in 2026. Deal value in the sector topped $40 billion in the first quarter alone, putting the full year on pace for $80–100 billion — a continuation of the sharp rebound from the 2023 trough (roughly $39 billion) through 2024 (~$68 billion) and 2025 (over $80 billion). But headline deal-value growth tells only part of the story. Underneath it, valuations have bifurcated sharply by deal size, and the market is behaving very differently at the small end than at the large end.
“Medtech” vs. “medical device” — not the same universe
The two terms get used interchangeably in banker decks and press coverage, but they describe different (overlapping) markets, and that distinction matters for which multiples apply:
Medical device is the narrower, more precisely defined category: hardware-centric products regulated as devices by the FDA (or CE-marked in Europe) — implants, surgical instruments, imaging hardware, monitors, diagnostics equipment. It’s a regulatory classification as much as a market description, and it’s the category ISO 13485/FDA-quality-system multiples (like the 6–13x ranges below) are built around.
Medtech is the broader industry umbrella. It includes medical devices, but also connected/software-enabled devices, software-as-a-medical-device, digital health infrastructure, and increasingly AI-enabled diagnostic and workflow tools — essentially medical devices plus the IT and data layer wrapped around them. Some industry definitions also fold in health IT and even parts of digital health under “medtech,” which is why sector-wide “medtech M&A” deal-value totals (e.g., the $80–100 billion 2026 estimate) run considerably larger than pure device M&A alone.
Why it matters here: multiples quoted for “medtech” deals broadly (including connected/software-enabled assets) tend to skew higher and show more dispersion than multiples for pure hardware device manufacturers, because software and data-layer businesses carry recurring-revenue and scalability premiums that classic medical device makers don’t. A profitable orthopedic implant manufacturer and an AI-enabled diagnostics software company both get called “medtech” in deal trackers, but they are underwritten on different logic — one largely on EBITDA and regulatory moat, the other increasingly on growth, data assets, and recurring revenue. The EBITDA-multiple ranges in this article are grounded in the medical device (hardware/regulated-device) segment specifically, unless a section is explicitly discussing the wider medtech or digital-health category — that distinction is called out below where relevant.
Small deals: solid multiples, but a real size penalty
For small and lower-middle-market medical device businesses — typically $5–150 million in revenue and under $10 million in EBITDA — multiples have generally settled in the 6x to 12x EBITDA range, with ISO 13485/FDA-regulated device manufacturers commanding a premium of roughly 2–4 turns over generic contract manufacturers thanks to their regulatory moats and OEM relationships.
Within that band, scale still matters enormously:
Below roughly $2–3 million in EBITDA, the buyer pool narrows to search funders, independent sponsors, and SBA-financed individual buyers, which mechanically caps pricing.
Crossing the $10 million EBITDA “platform threshold” unlocks institutional private equity and larger strategics, and is associated with a jump of 1.5x to 2x in multiple — sometimes described as a 3.5–4.0 turn premium versus smaller add-ons.
Private equity platforms are increasingly using this dynamic deliberately: buying smaller add-ons at 4.5x–7.0x EBITDA to blend down the average entry price of platforms that trade at 8.5x–15.5x.
So a small device company isn’t just worth “less” than a large one on an absolute basis — it trades at a structurally lower multiple, purely as a function of size, until it crosses into platform territory.
Large deals: compression, then a reset higher
At the top end, the picture has been more volatile. Broader healthcare M&A multiples compressed from a five-year high of 18.3x EV/EBITDA (Q1 2025, PE-led) down to a median of around 12.7x by Q1 2026, as buyers grew more disciplined and financing tightened. Strategic acquirers, in particular, have shown more pricing restraint than PE, favoring bolt-ons over full platform premiums.
At the same time, dealmakers at large strategics describe a genuine re-rating in what growth is worth: a point of revenue growth that might once have added three-plus turns of EBITDA to a valuation is now closer to two-and-a-half to three turns. That’s pushed large, well-capitalized acquirers like Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Stryker, and Abbott toward two parallel strategies — acquiring growth in categories like cardiovascular and neurostimulation, while simultaneously divesting slower-growth divisions to keep portfolio-level growth rates up. Average deal size, meanwhile, has swelled even as overall deal count fell, meaning capital is concentrating in fewer, larger, higher-conviction transactions rather than spreading broadly.
Net comparison: small deals trade on a tighter, more mechanical multiple grid driven by EBITDA scale and regulatory status; large deals trade on strategic conviction and growth profile, and have proven more sensitive to swings in financing costs and equity-market sentiment. Both segments are currently active, but for different reasons — large-cap consolidation is about portfolio reshaping, while small-cap activity is about platform-building and roll-ups.
Zurich, Switzerland
Cross-border activity with Europe: resilient, but newly friction-prone
Europe remains a significant and increasingly cross-border medtech market. Cross-border transactions now account for roughly half of total European healthcare M&A activity, and European healthcare deal value jumped sharply in 2025 (up around 87% to roughly €31.8 billion). Inbound US and global capital continues to target DACH-region (Germany/Austria/Switzerland) assets, where EBITDA multiples of 7x–13x are reported with an upward trend — though it’s worth flagging that this DACH figure spans the combined “medtech & digital health” category, not hardware devices alone, so it will run a bit richer and wider than a device-only comp set. Notable outbound deals continue too.
That said, 2026 has introduced real headwinds specific to cross-border deals. Dealmakers report that domestic US transactions are not experiencing the friction that cross-border ones are — tariff policy and broader trade uncertainty have become a distinctly cross-border issue, slowing timelines and adding structuring complexity even as valuations for the assets that do get done remain firm or higher than a year earlier. The EU’s Health Data Space regulation (adopted 2025, implementation ramping through 2026) is also reshaping deal diligence for any device touching patient data, adding a layer of regulatory-infrastructure work to cross-border processes.
How AI is actually affecting these markets — less than the pitch decks suggest
AI’s influence on medtech M&A is real but narrower than the marketing narrative implies, and dealmakers are notably split on it.
Where AI is clearly showing up: - As a diligence requirement, not a differentiator — buyers now routinely probe AI/data governance, model provenance, and “black-box” risk as a standard part of the diligence checklist, particularly for platforms relying on centralized analytics or clinical decision support. - As a target-selection filter — PitchBook and others expect 2026 M&A to concentrate on “tuck-in” acquisitions that add AI or data-driven capability, especially in diagnostics, imaging, and workflow automation. - As an operational tool for dealmakers themselves — AI is increasingly used in target screening, due diligence document review, and early valuation work, compressing timelines on the buy side.
Where its impact is overstated: Several experienced medtech bankers are openly skeptical that AI is moving deal volume or valuation premiums in any consistent way yet. AI-native companies (e.g., Heartflow) have attracted strong investor enthusiasm, but traditional, non-AI-native medtech businesses continue to trade — and in some cases outperform — on fundamentals like regulatory clearance, reimbursement pathway, and cash flow, not AI positioning. Broader M&A data also shows software deals aimed purely at “buying AI capability” have actually cooled and been re-rated lower in 2026, suggesting the market has become more discerning about which AI claims translate into durable value versus which are pitch-deck decoration.
Bottom line: AI is now a mandatory line item in medtech diligence and a genuine driver of which assets get a second look, but it has not yet become an independent valuation multiplier the way regulatory clearance or recurring revenue has. Most bankers expect that to remain true until AI-enabled devices and software accumulate enough real-world clinical and reimbursement track record to be underwritten like any other durable growth driver — rather than a novelty premium.
Sources synthesized from PwC Health Industries 2026 mid-year outlook, EY-Parthenon/LSI USA ‘26 panel commentary, FOCUS Investment Banking’s 2026 EBITDA dashboard, CT Acquisitions’ 2026 manufacturing/medtech valuation guides, Steinbeis Mergers & Acquisitions DACH medtech data, IMAP’s European Healthcare M&A Outlook 2026, Middle Branch Partners’ mid-year 2026 medtech conversation, and MedDeviceGuide’s 2025–2026 deal tracker.
Chuck Weikel is a Partner at Middle Branch Partners.
