Built for consumer brands and the firms that invest in them at the $25M to $100M revenue range. Live, anonymized performance data from 200+ brands. A peer community of operators and investors. A matching layer that connects the right founders with the right firms when both sides are ready.
Membership Tiers
Who this is for
CTC Capital Hub serves two populations on opposite sides of the same table. Consumer brands at $25M to $100M in revenue, founder-led or founder-adjacent, considering a transaction in the next 12 to 24 months. And the firms that invest in them: lower and core mid-market PE, family offices, search funds, and operator-investors. The matching layer is what connects them when both sides are ready.
Index
$249
per month, billed annually
DTC Index access — benchmarks across 12 verticals
Aggregated ROAS, CAC, AOV, and LTV data
Monthly Common Thread research reports
CTC editorial archive (reformatted for PE context)
Community
$799
per month, billed annually
Everything in Index
Private member directory and messaging
Moderated Q&A forum with LP and GP peers
Two in-person events per year (hosted by CTC)
Operator office hours with CTC leadership
Intelligence
$2,400
per month, billed monthly
Everything in Community
Natural language access to CTC's anonymized MCP
Query across 200+ brands by category, revenue band, and channel mix
Pre/post decision language correlated to outcomes
Diligence report generation (PDF export)
Dedicated CTC analyst for complex queries
What members say
We ran diligence on three baby-space brands last quarter. The index benchmarks alone saved us at least two weeks of primary research we would have commissioned externally.
DH
David H.
Managing Director, Ironwood Capital
The community is surprisingly active. I posted a question about post-acquisition media strategy on a Friday afternoon and had four useful responses before end of day.
SB
Sarah M.
Operating Partner, Crestline Equity
Having a live data layer that ties conversations to outcomes is unlike anything I've seen from a marketing agency. It reads more like a data product than a content library.
MK
Michael K.
Principal, Vantage Ventures
DTC Index
Anonymized performance benchmarks across 200+ consumer brands — updated monthly
Median ROAS
2.74x
▲ +0.18x vs 90 days ago
Median CAC
$61
▼ –$4 vs 90 days ago
Median AOV
$88
▲ +$6 vs 90 days ago
Brands Indexed
214
▲ +12 this quarter
Median ROAS by vertical — trailing 6 months
All brands anonymized. Revenue band: $5M–$100M ARR.
Apparel
Baby
Beauty
Home
CPG
Fitness
Pet
Skincare
Median ROAS index (normalized)
CAC trend — all verticals
MoM change, trailing 8 months
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
CAC rising
CAC falling
Brand profiles — revenue band $10M–$50M
Profile ID
Vertical
Ann. Revenue
Blended ROAS
CAC
AOV
Meta %
LTV/CAC
90d Trend
BRD-0041
Baby & Kids
$28.4M
3.12x
$54
$76
68%
4.8x
+14%
BRD-0087
Skincare
$41.1M
2.88x
$72
$112
74%
5.2x
+8%
BRD-0023
Apparel
$19.6M
2.41x
$48
$94
61%
3.9x
–3%
BRD-0112
Home
$33.8M
2.96x
$61
$142
55%
6.1x
+21%
🔒 BRD-0158
CPG
$12.3M
—
—
—
—
—
Upgrade to unlock
🔒 BRD-0204
Fitness
$47.9M
—
—
—
—
—
Upgrade to unlock
# General
84 members
MR
Ask the room something...
CTC
Common Thread
Platform team
Pinned2d ago
April DTC Index is live — CAC declining across 6 of 8 verticals
This month's update shows the most significant across-the-board CAC improvement since Q1 2024. Baby and skincare are the standouts. We've also added 12 new brands to the index, bringing total coverage to 214. Detailed vertical breakdowns are in the Index tab.
TW
Tara N.
Crestline Equity
Due Diligence5h ago
What's a realistic assumption for post-acquisition CAC increase in the first 90 days?
We're underwriting a $35M home goods brand and trying to build realistic 100-day operating assumptions. The previous owner was running things pretty lean. Has anyone seen a good rule of thumb for how much CAC typically moves in the transition period before a new media team finds its footing?
JL
James P.
Meridian Partners
Market1d ago
Meta CPMs in the apparel vertical are moving again — worth modeling into H2 assumptions?
We've been watching a slow CPM creep in apparel for the past 6 weeks. Curious if others are seeing it on their portcos, and whether you're building it into second-half budgets or treating it as transient. CTC team, would love to hear if the index data corroborates.
NK
Nadia R.
Vantage Ventures
Ops2d ago
How are people handling creative production cadence expectations when you bring in a new media agency post-close?
One of the friction points we keep running into is the ramp time before a new agency is actually producing creative at volume. The brands we've acquired usually had their founder doing a lot of the creative direction informally. Anyone built a structured onboarding playbook they'd be willing to share?
CTC Intelligence
Anonymized access to 214 brand profiles across CTC's portfolio
Live data · Apr 2026
AI
Hello. You're connected to CTC's Intelligence layer, which gives you natural language access to aggregated, anonymized performance data across 214 consumer brands we work with.
No brand names will be revealed. Data is grouped by vertical, revenue band, and channel mix. You can query across any combination of those dimensions, and I can help generate diligence summaries or export structured reports.
MR
I'm looking at acquiring a brand doing around $30M a year in the baby space. Can you give me a picture of what that category looks like from a media efficiency standpoint, and flag any patterns you've seen around what tends to move the needle post-acquisition?
AI
Here's what the data shows for baby and kids brands in the $20M–$40M band, based on 11 brand profiles currently in the index:
Media efficiency baseline
Median blended ROAS sits at 3.12x, which is above the cross-vertical average of 2.74x. Meta still accounts for the majority of paid spend in this category — typically 65–72% of total media budget — with Google capturing most of the remainder and very little meaningful spend elsewhere.
CAC
Median CAC is $54 in this segment, with a range of $38–$91 depending heavily on how dependent the brand is on branded search. Brands with strong organic and email components tend toward the lower end of that range.
Post-acquisition patterns
The most consistent signal in the data: brands that maintain their creative production velocity through a transition — meaning they don't pause or slow down ad creative while a new agency onboards — show meaningfully less CAC degradation in the first 90 days. The ones that stalled on creative during handoff took an average of 17 weeks to recover to pre-acquisition efficiency.
All profiles are anonymized. No individual brand names, client names, or identifiable attributes are included in any response.
Connected to CTC MCP · 214 brands in scope · Queries remaining this month: 47 / 50
Query context
Baby & Kids ×$20M–$40M ×Meta primary ×Apr 2026 ×
Live benchmarks — scope match
Profiles matched11
Median ROAS3.12x
Median CAC$54
Median AOV$76
LTV/CAC median4.8x
Meta share (median)68%
90d ROAS trend+14%
Recent queries
What's creative velocity look like for baby brands scaling toward $50M?
Today · 2:14 PM
How does blended ROAS hold up during agency transitions in this space?
Today · 2:09 PM
CAC comparison: baby vs skincare at the $30M revenue band
Yesterday · 4:41 PM
Export
Research & Intelligence
Long-form analysis from CTC's team — written for operators and investors, not generalists
Market Trends
Why DTC CAC is falling and what it actually means for your underwriting assumptions
The headline number looks encouraging, but the story underneath it is more complicated. Not all of the CAC decline is structural — some of it is timing-driven, and the brands benefiting most are the ones who held creative volume through 2024's rough patch. What that means for how you model the next 24 months after close.
Deal Prep
The 7 media metrics we'd want to see before submitting an LOI
Most broker packages are built to obscure the things that actually matter. Here's what we look for when a deal lands on our desk, and what a clean number looks like versus one that needs more work.
Media Strategy
Agency transitions without the 90-day efficiency cliff
The handoff period is where most of the value destruction happens in a post-acquisition media reset. This is what we've learned from doing it across a lot of brands, and what a structured transition actually looks like.
Recent dispatches
01
Skincare and beauty are outperforming the index — here's why it probably won't last
Market Trends · Apr 22, 2026 · 7 min
→
02
How to read an ad account in 20 minutes: the due diligence framework we use on every deal
Deal Prep · Apr 15, 2026 · 12 min
→
03
What the fitness vertical's plateau tells us about the ceiling for high-repeat-purchase DTC
Market Trends · Apr 8, 2026 · 8 min
→
04
Building a media team inside a portco vs. staying with an agency: what the data actually says
Methodology · Mar 31, 2026 · 10 min
→
05
The LTV/CAC ratios worth paying attention to — and the ones that are basically noise
Deal Prep · Mar 20, 2026 · 6 min
→
Fund
Crestline Fund III
AUM
$340M
Deployed
$218M
Portfolio IRR
24.1%
Gross MOIC
2.3x
Active Companies
6
As of
Apr 30, 2026
Fund:
Gross IRR
24.1%
Fund III target: 22%
▲ +2.1 pts vs target
Gross MOIC
2.3x
Target: 2.5x at exit
On track
DPI
0.42x
Distributed to paid-in
1 partial exit (Traction Co.)
TVPI
2.3x
Total value / paid-in
▲ vs 2.1x last quarter
Portfolio Rev (LTM)
$487M
Blended across 6 portcos
▲ +18% YoY
LTM revenue by portfolio company
Bars sized to LTM revenue. Color indicates blended ROAS vs CTC DTC Index benchmark.
Above index ROAS
Partial exit
Below index ROAS
Watch list
Capital allocation by company
% of $218M deployed
Apex Gear Co.
24%
Haven & Co.
20%
Traction Co.
16%
Hearthside Co.
15%
Lumis Beauty
14%
Solstice Coffee
11%
Portfolio companies
Company
Vertical
Entry
Invested
LTM Rev
Rev YoY
Blended ROAS
CAC
EBITDA %
Gross MOIC
IRR
vs Plan
vs Peers
Status
APX
Apex Gear Co.
Accessories
Q2 '23
$52M
$112M
+9.6%
3.12x
$54
16.5%
2.4x
26.8%
Rev+6.2%
ROAS+0.18x
ROAS+0.38x ↑
CAC–$7 ↑
On track
HVN
Haven & Co.
Apparel
Q4 '22
$44M
$88M
+14.2%
2.88x
$61
14.1%
2.8x
31.2%
Rev+15.3%
iROAS+0.3x
ROAS+0.28x ↑
CAC+$3 ↓
On track
TRC
Traction Co.
Accessories
Q1 '22
$35M
$74M
+6.1%
2.61x
$48
18.4%
3.1x
28.4%
Rev+4.1%
ROAS–0.14x
ROAS–0.13x ↓
CAC–$13 ↑
P
Partial exit
LMB
Lumis Beauty
Beauty
Q3 '23
$30M
$62M
+22.4%
3.44x
$39
19.2%
2.1x
23.1%
Rev+18.6%
ROAS+0.44x
ROAS+0.72x ↑
CAC–$18 ↑
On track
HRT
Hearthside Co.
Home
Q2 '24
$33M
$91M
–2.1%
2.28x
$74
11.3%
1.7x
14.6%
Rev–5.8%
ROAS–0.41x
ROAS–0.46x ↓
CAC+$13 ↓
Watch
SLC
Solstice Coffee
CPG
Q1 '25
$24M
$60M
–4.8%
1.94x
$88
8.6%
1.2x
9.4%
Rev–8.2%
ROAS–0.74x
ROAS–0.80x ↓
CAC+$27 ↓
At risk
Gross IRR by company vs fund target (22%)
Horizontal bar chart. Target line at 22%.
ROIC trend — blended portfolio
Rolling quarterly average, Fund III
APX
Apex Gear Co. · DTC Diligence Report · Apr 2026
Executive Summary · Headline View
Apex Gear Co. is a category-leading brand with a fixable measurement and retention problem, and a Spending Power profile that warrants pricing adjustment rather than walking away.
Performance and creative infrastructure are industry leading on the dimensions that matter for capital allocation. Measurement is shallow, Spending Power is mid-tier and degrading, and LTV Lift is decaying across the four most recent quarterly cohorts. The unit economics support the deal at a re-priced range, conditional on a confirmatory cohort review during exclusivity.
LTM Revenue
$112.4M
+9.6% YoY · 3Y CAGR 14.2%
Adj. EBITDA Margin
16.5%
Top quartile · +90 bps YoY
Blended ROAS
3.12x
71st percentile DTC Index
CAC (blended)
$54
Below category median of $61
Creative Health
74 / 100
Strong ad volume and diversification. Evergreen share is above benchmark. Zero-revenue ad rate elevated but addressable within 60 days of onboarding.
Measurement Maturity
41 / 100
No historical incrementality studies. Attribution is MTA-only. Confirmatory geo holdout required before underwriting ROAS assumptions as causal.
Retention Health
58 / 100
LTV Lift decaying across four most recent quarterly cohorts. Repeat purchase rate holding but second-order purchase velocity slowing. Requires cohort review in exclusivity.
What this tells you: Apex ranks 3rd of 9 in its peer cohort on blended ROAS and revenue growth, outperforming the median on every metric except Meta spend concentration. The primary gap vs. top-quartile peers is Google allocation: BRD-0091 and BRD-0044 run Google at 28–31% of spend vs. Apex's 18%.
Thesis Questions · Answered
The Company has the underlying economics to be a top-quartile capital allocation outcome, but the path requires retiring three operating habits that are currently masking causal performance.
Q1.
Did historical spend actually generate incremental contribution dollars?
We cannot fully answer this from the data available, which is itself the most important finding in the diligence. The Company has never run a properly designed geo holdout test, and platform-reported ROAS is the only attribution surface in active use. Our triangulation across Northbeam, GA4, and Shopify cohort data suggests that platform-reported performance is overstated by roughly fifteen to twenty-two percent on Meta and twenty-eight to thirty-four percent on Google brand search. A confirmatory incrementality study during exclusivity is the highest-value diligence action available.
Q2.
What is the brand's Spending Power, and how much can it absorb?
Spending Power calibrates at approximately $340K, which means roughly $340K of incremental monthly spend would degrade ACONS by one point. This is mid-tier for the accessories category (the DTC Consumer Index median sits at $510K). The brand can comfortably absorb the spend level implied by management's plan, but the curve steepens above the $1.4M monthly mark, and the underwriting case should not assume linear scale beyond that without a creative volume increase.
Q3.
How is LTV Lift trending, and is the terminal rate stable?
LTV Lift is decaying in the early months (M1 through M4) across the most recent four cohorts, with M3 specifically dropping from a trailing-eight average of 5.1% to a recent average of 3.4%. The terminal rate (M12 onward) remains stable at approximately 0.6%, which means the indefinite tail of returning revenue is intact. The cohort decay is concentrated in the early curve, which is both the most damaging shape (it compresses payback) and the most addressable through retention-system rebuilds.
Q4.
How healthy is the creative portfolio at scale?
Composite Creative Score is 66, which sits above the 50 healthy-portfolio threshold and below the 75 mark we associate with brands that can scale without near-term creative investment. Ad concentration (38th percentile) and ROAS degradation (55th percentile) are the two components dragging the composite. The Company is producing roughly forty new ads per month against a Creative Demand Plan recommendation closer to fifty-eight at current spend levels, which is a quantifiable production gap.
Project Scope · Profit Engine · Process
Common Thread Collective was engaged to conduct a comprehensive eCommerce diligence of Apex Gear Co. in support of a sponsor-led majority recap evaluation.
Thesis Questions
Did the Company's marketing spend over the trailing twenty-four months actually generate incremental contribution dollars, or is reported performance the product of platform attribution rather than causal lift?
What is the brand's Spending Power, and how much incremental monthly spend can be absorbed before acquisition efficiency degrades meaningfully?
How is LTV Lift trending across the most recent twelve cohorts, and is the terminal retention rate stable enough to underwrite the returning-revenue half of the forecast?
How healthy is the creative portfolio against the cross-portfolio benchmark, and does the Company have the production capacity to fund the Creative Demand Plan a sponsor-driven scale-up would require?
Where does the Company sit in the DTC Consumer Index on the metrics that drive enterprise value at exit, and what is the realistic capital allocation upside post-close?
The Basis of Our Opinion
Our conclusions are derived from the following activities, completed within a four-week diligence window:
Ingested 36 months of raw transaction-level data into Statlas and ran the Spending Power, Retention, Event Effect, and Creative Demand models against the Company's history
Audited Meta, Google, Amazon Ads, Klaviyo, and Shopify infrastructure for measurement integrity and tagging discipline
Benchmarked against the cross-portfolio DTC Consumer Index, drawing on $10B+ in GMV and $2B+ in ad spend across managed brands
Reviewed prior incrementality and geo holdout work (where any existed) and assessed the Company's measurement maturity
Conducted a three-hour management session with the CMO, Head of Growth, and Head of Operations
Reviewed 28 marketing, finance, and operations documents shared via the data room
Modules In Scope
Performance Assessment
×
Measurement & Incrementality Audit
×
Spending Power Modeling
×
Retention & LTV Lift Modeling
×
Creative Demand Diagnostic
×
Meta Audit
×
Google Audit
×
Amazon Audit
×
Email & SMS Audit
×
Team & Process Audit
-
Influencer Audit
-
About This Document
This memo is structured around the question that matters most to a sponsor's CFO: did this marketing spend generate incremental contribution dollars that would not have existed otherwise, and what would have happened if the Company had not spent the money? Every section returns to that question, and the metrics we report are the ones that translate cleanly between marketing execution and financial outcomes.
The first half of the document covers the present-day reality of the business across measurement maturity, customer economics, media efficiency, and creative portfolio health. The second half is forward-looking and covers the daily-granularity Statlas forecast, the value creation plan organized around the Profit Engine framework, and our final investment recommendation with a top-three risk and opportunity scorecard.
Where we cite percentile ranks, the benchmark is the DTC Consumer Index, the cross-portfolio dataset of more than 250 active brands and $10B+ in GMV that powers Statlas. The matched peer cohort for this engagement is accessories brands at the $80M to $150M revenue tier.
The CTC Profit Engine
A diligence framework built around the three pillars that turn marketing activity into capital allocation decisions: measurement, forecasting, and the Creative Demand Plan.
The Profit Engine is the operating system underneath every CTC engagement. For a diligence context, it gives the sponsor's deal team a single connected lens for evaluating the target. Incrementality-based measurement establishes the truth of historical performance, daily-granularity forecasting establishes the predictability of future performance, and the Creative Demand Plan establishes whether the production system can sustain the investment thesis. Each pillar speaks finance's language by design.
01Measurement
Incrementality-Based Truth
Geo holdout testing as the gold-standard mechanism for closing the gap between platform-reported performance and causal economic impact. The diligence question this answers: did this spend generate incremental contribution dollars that would not have existed otherwise?
OutputiMER, Causal Lift, Maturity Score
02Forecasting
Daily P&L Granularity
A bottoms-up forecast built from the Spending Power, Retention, Event Effect, and Creative Demand models in Statlas. CTC's stated accuracy benchmark is 3.15% across $3B in managed GMV, with a ±10% deviation as the operational success standard for any individual brand.
OutputDaily Revenue, Spend, CM by Channel
03Creative Demand
Production Tied to Plan
A monthly target for new ads required to execute the media plan, derived from the Creative Score (a composite of zero revenue rate, ad concentration, ROAS degradation, spend degradation, and evergreen share) benchmarked against all managed stores.
OutputMonthly Ad Volume, Creative Score
3.15%
Forecast Accuracy Benchmark
Average deviation from target across all CTC client forecasts in 2025, validated across $3B in managed GMV. The operational success standard for any individual brand is ±10%. Underwriting in this memo is built to the same standard.
Plot. Pivot. Profit.
The four-step operating cadence behind every CTC engagement. The diligence variant compresses the same workflow into a four-week window, starting with qualitative scoping and ending with a daily-granularity forecast and value creation plan handed off to the sponsor's deal team. Preliminary opinion within twenty-four hours of data access. Final memo within seventy-two hours of the management session.
Day 0 · Qualitative Planning
Align on deal thesis, key questions, timeline, and data room access. Map the calendar of cultural moments, launches, and promotions that shape the revenue base. Coordinate the data request to minimize the management team's lift.
Week 1 · Quantitative Modeling
Raw data ingested into Statlas. The four proprietary models run against the Company's transaction history. Statlas Planning produces preliminary forecasts; the Creative Demand model produces the portfolio health score against managed-store benchmarks.
Week 2 · Build the Map
Every dollar, every day, every channel laddering up to the underwriting case. Three optimization points modeled on the Spending Power curve. Management session validates hypotheses and pressure-tests infrastructure, tooling, team, and process.
Week 4 · Plot. Pivot. Profit.
Final memo and value creation plan delivered. The handoff includes the daily forecast in a structure the sponsor's finance team can plug into their own underwriting models via API or MCP, with continuous re-cut available post-LOI.
Section 04 · Measurement & Incrementality
Apex Gear Co. operates at Maturity Level 1: platform attribution is the only measurement surface in active use, and no geo holdout testing has ever been conducted.
A great measurement system closes the gap between reality and fiction. The Company's current state is essentially fiction-only. Every number in this report sits on top of an attribution surface that has never been validated against causal truth.
Fiction · Platform-Reported
5.62x
Reported Meta ROAS · LTM
Last-click and view-through attribution
Includes branded search self-cannibalization
Conversion API signal, no holdout validation
Counted across overlapping platforms
Reality Gap
Reality · Triangulated Estimate
4.41x
Estimated Incremental Meta ROAS
GA4 cross-checked against Shopify last-touch
Brand search subtracted from Meta credit
Northbeam-derived attribution adjustment
Estimate — not causally validated
The 21.5% reality gap is the central reason this diligence cannot fully answer thesis question one. The remediation is straightforward: a six-week geo holdout test on Meta during exclusivity would establish the actual causal lift number. We strongly recommend it as a closing condition.
Level 0
Platform Reporting Only
Trust whatever Meta, Google, and TikTok dashboards report. No cross-platform reconciliation. Most early-stage DTC brands sit here.
Apex Today
Level 1
Multi-Touch Adjusted
Northbeam, Triple Whale, or GA4 last-touch used to cross-check platform claims. Better than Level 0, but still observational. No causal validation.
Level 2
MMM & Periodic Holdouts
Marketing mix modeling layered on top, plus occasional geo holdout tests. First level at which causal evidence enters the system.
Level 3
Continuous Geo Holdout
Always-on incrementality program across every point of distribution. Progressive causal truth accumulates over time. Where this brand should be in 12 months.
Measurement Maturity
Level 1
No geo holdout history
Platform attribution only
Reality Gap · Meta
21.5%
5.62x reported → 4.41x est.
Unvalidated overstep
Google Brand Gap
28–34%
Estimated overstatement
Self-cannibalization
Remediation Cost
$0.25M
6-week geo holdout via Statlas
Highest-value diligence action
21.5%
Reality Gap · Estimated
Net: The diligence underwriting case, the value creation plan, and the post-close measurement remediation should all be sized to the assumption that incremental performance is meaningfully below platform-reported performance. The first ninety days post-close should include a Statlas-managed geo holdout program across Meta and Google brand to convert this estimate into causally validated truth. This is the most efficient single dollar of value-creation spend available.
Reality vs Fiction5.62x → 4.41xConfidenceTriangulated
$340K Spending Power places Apex Gear Co. in the middle of the pack for accessories, with diminishing returns steepening above the $1.4M monthly spend ceiling.
The Spending Power model returns a slope and intercept for each forecasted month. The brand's current calibration implies that roughly $340K of incremental monthly spend would degrade ACONS by one point. The DTC Consumer Index median for accessories sits at $510K. Practically, the Company has runway at the current spend level and can scale into management's plan, but the curve flattens noticeably above $1.4M and the upside case requires a creative production response (covered in section 11) rather than budget alone.
ACONS Curve · Apex Gear Co. vs DTC Consumer Index Median
Ad spend to acquisition efficiency · Statlas Spending Power Model
Apex Gear Co. ACONS
DTC Consumer Index Median
Target ACONS Band
Decomposing the YoY ACONS Decline
ACONS has degraded by seven cents over the trailing twelve months. The forces driving that decline split between the Company's control and the macro environment, and the split matters because it tells the sponsor what is fixable post-close versus what needs to be priced into the underwriting case.
Within Your Control · 58% of Decline
$0.041
of the seven-cent ACONS increase is attributable to operating decisions
Creative concentration in top 5 ads+$0.014
Meta share at 71% (vs 52% benchmark)+$0.012
Prospecting mix vs retargeting+$0.009
Underspend on Google PMax+$0.006
Outside Your Control · 42% of Decline
$0.029
of the seven-cent ACONS increase is attributable to market and macro factors
Meta CPM inflation (+28% YoY)+$0.017
Category competitive intensity+$0.008
iOS signal degradation, ongoing+$0.003
Macro discretionary softness+$0.001
38th
DTC Consumer Index Percentile · ACONS & Spending Power
Net: Most of the ACONS pressure is operationally addressable. The within-your-control side of the decomposition is the source of the value creation thesis, because $0.041 of the seven-cent decline can be reclaimed through channel rebalance and creative production discipline. The outside-your-control component is the market reality the underwriting case must absorb.
Median ACONS$0.34Median Spending Power$510K
Channel Concentration & Rebalancing
71% of paid acquisition runs through Meta — the most concentrated mix in the accessories category — and Spending Power calibrates at $340K, mid-tier for the vertical.
Meta concentration of this magnitude was last seen in the category in 2021, before the post-iOS 14 rebalancing. The Company has under-invested in Google PMax, Amazon Sponsored Brands, and retail media. Diversification capacity is meaningful at iso-CAC, and the Spending Power model supports routing incremental dollars into Google and Amazon where marginal efficiency is higher.
Meta Share
71%
Category median: 52%
+19 pts above median
Google Share
18%
Category median: 31%
Under-deployed by 13 pts
Spending Power
$340K
DTC Index median: $510K
Mid-tier · caution at scale
Blended ROAS
3.12x
71st percentile in cohort
Above peer median
Paid spend mix vs DTC Index peer median — rebalancing targets
The Spending Power model implies that incremental dollars routed into Google and Amazon would degrade ACONS less than the same dollars added to Meta. The Company spends roughly 1.4x the category median share on Meta and 0.5x the median on Google. The efficiency advantage of the Meta-heavy structure has narrowed as Meta CPMs have inflated 28% over the past 18 months. The rebalancing motion is therefore both an offense play (more efficient incremental dollars) and a defense play (single-platform exposure reduction).
The category-matched DTC Consumer Index peer group runs a typical mix of 52% Meta, 31% Google, 11% Amazon, and 6% emerging channels. Apex Gear Co.'s Meta overweight has been historically defensible because of strong creative output, but the efficiency advantage has narrowed as Meta CPMs have inflated 28% over the past eighteen months and the Company's Creative Score has held only at the median. The Spending Power case for diversification is therefore strong on both offense (more efficient incremental dollars) and defense (single-platform exposure reduction).
Customer economics are the swing variable in the underwriting case. The early LTV curve is compressing, returning revenue is shrinking as a share of total, and payback has lengthened by 1.4 months across recent cohorts.
LTV Lift & Retention
M3 LTV Lift has dropped from 5.1% across the trailing eight cohorts to 3.4% across the most recent four, while the terminal rate holds steady at 0.6%.
The Retention Model decomposes returning revenue as the sum of all active cohorts, each contributing first-month revenue multiplied by an age-specific LTV Lift. The decay shape for Apex Gear Co. is normal in structure (steep early decay, stable terminal rate) but the early-curve magnitude has compressed materially in recent vintages. The terminal rate at M12 and beyond is unchanged, which means the indefinite tail of the cohort book is healthy. The damage is concentrated in months one through six, which is also where it most compresses payback period.
Percentage of first-order revenue returned each month · Statlas Retention Model
Trailing 8 Avg (Healthy)
Recent 4 Avg (Decaying)
Individual Vintages
Retention Model R²
0.84
Above 0.6 healthy threshold
Healthy fit
M3 LTV Lift Gap
-33%
Recent 4 vs trailing 8
Material decay
Terminal Rate (M12+)
0.6%
Indefinite tail intact
Stable across vintages
Implied Payback
+1.4mo
From 4.4mo to 5.8mo
Lengthening
22nd
DTC Consumer Index Percentile · M3 LTV Lift
Net: The early-curve compression is the highest-leverage operational issue post-close. It is also the most addressable, because the curve shape is correct (the model R² remains 0.84) and the terminal rate is stable. The remediation is a retention-systems rebuild rather than a fundamental retention rethink: subscription, cross-sell into the broader rugged accessories category, and a post-purchase journey that is currently flagship-product-only.
Median M3 Lift5.4%Top Quartile7.8%
Revenue Composition · New vs Returning
Returning revenue has declined from 54% of total revenue in Q1 2024 to 44% in Q1 2026, signaling growing acquisition dependency.
A healthy DTC business grows both new and returning revenue simultaneously. When new revenue grows faster than returning, the business is becoming more dependent on paid acquisition to sustain its topline, which compresses margin and increases sensitivity to CAC inflation. The Quick Ratio (new revenue divided by churned revenue) quantifies how efficiently new dollars replace lost ones. Apex Gear Co.'s Quick Ratio sits at 2.1x, which is acceptable but declining from a trailing peak of 3.4x in early 2024.
Monthly Revenue · New vs Returning Customer Split
24-month trend, Apr 2024 to Mar 2026 · Statlas Revenue Attribution
New Customer Revenue
Returning Customer Revenue
New Customer % (right axis)
New Rev Share · Current
56%
Was 46% in Q1 2024
+10 pts in 24 months
Returning Rev Share
44%
DTC Index median 48%
-10 pts in 24 months
Quick Ratio · Current
2.1x
Was 3.4x in Q1 2024
Declining efficiency
DTC Index Median QR
2.6x
30th pctl currently
Benchmark reference
30th
DTC Consumer Index Percentile · Quick Ratio
Net: The revenue mix shift is the most legible expression of the LTV Lift decay. A brand with improving retention accretes returning revenue faster than new revenue grows, which improves margin because returning customers carry near-zero acquisition cost. Fixing the early LTV Lift curve is not just a customer-quality play, it is also the mechanism that rebalances the revenue mix and reduces the structural acquisition dependency that is now showing up in the Quick Ratio.
Median Quick Ratio2.6xTop Quartile4.1x
CAC to LTV · Cohort Payback Grid
Recent cohorts are taking 5.8 months to break even on CAC, up from 4.4 months two years ago, and two cohorts remain unprofitable at twelve months.
The payback grid below shows each quarterly acquisition cohort as a row and cumulative gross margin per acquired customer as a percentage of CAC at each time interval. A cell reaching 100% means that cohort has fully repaid its acquisition cost from gross margin alone. Red cells are still underwater, amber are approaching breakeven, and green have cleared it. Reading down any column shows whether payback timing is improving or degrading across vintages.
Cumulative Gross Margin vs CAC · % of CAC Recovered
Each cell = cumulative gross margin per acquired customer ÷ blended CAC at acquisition. 100% = payback achieved.
Cohort
M1
M3
M6
M9
M12
M18
M24
Breakeven
Below 60% · Underwater
60–99% · Approaching
100%+ · Profitable
Not yet reached
Average Payback Curve · Trailing 8 vs Recent 4 Cohorts
Cumulative gross margin per customer ÷ blended CAC at acquisition
Trailing 8 Avg
Recent 4 Avg
100% Breakeven
5.8mo
Average CAC Payback · Recent 4 Cohorts
Net: The payback extension from 4.4 to 5.8 months is the financial expression of everything in this section in a single number. CAC is rising while early LTV Lift is compressing, and the combination stretches the capital cycle. The value creation plan addresses both sides: the ACONS reduction from channel rebalancing shortens the numerator, and the retention-system rebuild lengthens the LTV curve that forms the denominator. A return to 4.4-month payback is the base-case target by the end of the first operating year.
Trailing 8 Avg4.4 moBenchmark Median4.8 mo
Section 07 · Creative Portfolio Health
Composite Creative Score of 66 sits above the healthy-portfolio threshold, but ad concentration and ROAS degradation are dragging the composite and a production gap of 18 ads per month exists.
The Creative Demand model evaluates portfolio health against five metrics benchmarked against all managed stores. The composite tells the operator whether the brand can produce fewer ads or needs to produce more. Apex scores above the threshold but well below the 80+ brands that scale without near-term creative investment.
66
Creative Score · / 100
Zero Revenue Rate
72nd pctl
Ad Concentration
38th pctl
ROAS Degradation
55th pctl
Spend Degradation
61st pctl
Evergreen Share
84th pctl
Current Production /mo
~40
In-house + partner output
Steady cadence
Recommended Demand /mo
58
Per Creative Demand Model
Modeled requirement
Production Gap
18
Ads/month under-resourced
Below target volume
Top 5 Ad Concentration
64%
Median benchmark: 47%
+17 pts above median
Strong evergreen stability is carrying this account, but the ad concentration metric flags real fatigue risk. The top five ads are driving 64% of LTM spend against a 47% benchmark median, and ROAS degradation in week-over-week launch performance has accelerated meaningfully since Q3 2025. Closing the 18-ad production gap is the single highest-leverage creative-system change available — it is a quantifiable resourcing question, not a strategic one.
Section 08 · 2027 P&L Forecast via Statlas
The Spending Power curve gives the sponsor a strategic choice, not just a forecast: where on the curve does this business want to operate, and what capital allocation outcome does that imply?
CTC's forecasting standard is ±10% accuracy to target on a daily-granularity basis, supported by 3.15% average accuracy across $3B in managed GMV in 2025. The forecast is built around three optimization points on the Spending Power curve — because the most valuable conversation is not whether revenue grows in 2027, it is which version of the business is being underwritten.
M1 · Most Conservative
Maximize Month One Contribution
$0.95M/mo spend
Spend only to the level where every new customer generates positive contribution margin in their first month. No reliance on retention. Highest efficiency, lowest volume. Implied 2027 revenue $108M, EBITDA margin 17.8%.
BE · Middle Ground · Current posture
Breakeven on First Purchase
$1.38M/mo spend
Spend to the point where new customer acquisition breaks even on first purchase, with all future returning revenue as upside. Implied 2027 revenue $124.6M, EBITDA margin 16.0%.
LTV · Most Aggressive
Maximize Lifetime Contribution
$1.92M/mo spend
Spend to the level where total lifetime gross margin of acquired customers exceeds acquisition cost. Maximum volume, longest payback. Implied 2027 revenue $148.2M, EBITDA margin 14.5% — only if LTV Lift remediation is executed.
2027 Base Case Revenue
$124.6M
BE optimization point
+10.8% vs 2026A
2027 Upside Revenue
$148.2M
LTV point — if retention fixed
+31.8% vs 2026A
2027 Downside Revenue
$103.5M
LTV decay continues
–7.9% vs 2026A
Forecast Accuracy
3.15%
Avg deviation across $3B GMV
CTC 2025 benchmark
The forecast is only as good as the measurement underneath it. Until the geo holdout study converts the 21.5% reality gap from an estimate into a causally validated number, the base case carries measurement risk. The first action of the 100-day plan closes that gap.
Revenue & EBITDA Forecast · 2027 vs 2026A
CTC base, upside, and downside cases vs management plan · ±10% accuracy band
2026A
CTC Base (BE)
CTC Upside (LTV)
CTC Downside
Mgmt Plan
Base Case · Probability 55%
Revenue grows 10.8% to $124.6M, reflecting partial recovery in M3 LTV Lift (to 4.4% from 3.4%) and continued Meta cost pressure offsetting most of the lift. Adjusted EBITDA margin holds at 16.0% as gross margin tailwinds offset the cost of channel diversification and the closing of the production gap. Operates at the BE point on the Spending Power curve.
Upside Case · Probability 25%
Revenue grows 31.9% to $148.2M as the Profit Engine value creation plan executes on schedule. M3 LTV Lift recovers to median (5.4%); Meta share migrates to 55%; Amazon DSP ramps; the production gap closes. Adjusted EBITDA margin compresses to 14.5% in year one because of acquisition reinvestment, then expands materially in 2028. Operates at the LTV optimization point.
Downside Case · Probability 20%
Revenue declines 8.3% to $103.1M as cohort decay accelerates and Meta CPMs continue to inflate without an offsetting channel diversification motion. Adjusted EBITDA margin compresses to 12.5% on deleverage. This is the scenario most relevant to deal pricing, and the 0.7x to 1.1x EBITDA pricing adjustment recommendation is calibrated against this downside.
Section 09 · Value Creation Plan · 100-Day Priorities
Four sequenced initiatives organized around the order that compounds operationally, not the order that looks good on a slide.
The value creation plan is built around the Profit Engine framework: measurement truth first, then retention infrastructure, then creative demand, then channel diversification. Each step enables the next. Skipping step one invalidates the capital allocation decisions that follow.
01
Days 1–45
Establish causal truth
Six-week geo holdout test on Meta during or immediately after exclusivity. Converts $0.25M of diligence spend into a quantified incremental ROAS number that anchors every capital allocation decision for the next four years.
Expected: Confirm or reset 4.41x iROAS estimate
02
Days 30–90
Rebuild retention infrastructure
Subscription, cross-sell, and post-purchase journeys are materially underdeveloped. Targeting an M3 LTV Lift recovery from 3.4% to 4.8% by day 90. Email revenue share from 18% to 28% of total revenue.
Expected: $1.4M–$2.3M incremental contribution in Y1
03
Days 45–120
Close the creative production gap
18 additional ads per month of incremental production capacity. Addresses ad concentration risk (top 5 ads at 64% of spend vs 47% median) and supports the channel diversification motion without a Spending Power degradation event.
Expected: Creative Score 66 → 80+ within two quarters
04
Days 90–180
Rebalance channel mix
Reduce Meta from 71% to 55% of paid spend. Expand Google PMax from 18% to 28%. Add Amazon DSP from 8% to 12%. Iso-CAC rebalancing — each incremental dollar routes to the channel where Spending Power degrades slowest.
Expected: ACONS improvement of 0.8–1.2 pts at same spend level
CAC Payback Today
5.8 mo
Up from 4.4 mo two years ago
Extending
Payback Target (Y1)
4.4 mo
Return to prior baseline
Achievable if steps 1–2 execute
Retention Target (M3 LTV)
4.8%
Up from current 3.4%
90-day target
Email Rev Share Target
28%
Up from current 18%
Peer category median
Days 180 to 365 · Adjacent Expansion
Strategic Capital Deployment
International expansion via Shopify Markets (UK, DE, CA)
New product line beyond cases (cables, mounts, audio, packs)
B2B/enterprise channel build-out (military, first responder, field services)
Loyalty program activation against owned audience of 2.1M
Year Two Horizon
Continuous Measurement Cadence
Move from Maturity Level 1 to Level 3 (continuous geo holdout)
Quarterly re-cut of Spending Power and Retention models
Daily forecast cadence delivered to sponsor finance team via API
Build a real-time bridge between marketing execution and the financial plan
Estimated cumulative contribution$1.2M to $1.7M
Section 10 · Risks & Opportunities
Three tigers and three compounding opportunities — sequenced in the order that matters to the underwriting case, not the order that looks most dramatic.
Bad gross margin is a tiger. Bloated OpEx is a tiger. The next ad headline variation is a mouse. The risks below are listed in order of their threat to the base-case IRR if unaddressed in the first operating year.
Top risks
1
Measurement absence. No historical incrementality work means the entire underwriting case sits on top of an attribution surface that has never been validated against causal truth. This is the single largest risk in the deal and the easiest to address. A six-week geo holdout resolves it.
2
LTV Lift early-curve compression. If M3 decay continues for two more quarterly cohorts, the base case is no longer base case. The retention rebuild needs to ship in the first 90 days, not the first 180.
3
Meta concentration. 71% of paid spend through a single platform creates single-platform exposure and CPM-inflation vulnerability. The Spending Power model implies degrading marginal efficiency in this configuration above the $1.4M monthly threshold.
Top opportunities
1
Establish causal truth. Six-week geo holdout during exclusivity converts $0.25M of diligence spend into a quantified incremental ROAS number that anchors every capital allocation decision for the next four years.
2
Retention infrastructure rebuild. Subscription, cross-sell, and post-purchase journeys are materially underdeveloped. Targeting M3 LTV Lift recovery to 4.8% by day 90 is realistic and supports $1.4M to $2.3M of incremental contribution.
3
Close the Creative Demand Plan gap. 18 ads per month of incremental production capacity, paired with the channel diversification motion, supports the upside case without a Spending Power degradation event.
Section 11 · Investment Recommendation
Conditional Proceed. The deal works at a re-priced range of 7.5–8.5x LTM EBITDA, with a geo holdout commitment as a closing condition.
Creative infrastructure, EBITDA margin, and DTC execution are category-leading. The measurement gap introduces uncertainty but is resolvable. The retention decay is the bigger watch item and the primary focus of the exclusivity period.
Conditional Proceed · Re-Price
A category-leading brand with a fixable measurement and retention problem and a pricing ask that has not yet adjusted for either.
If the post-LOI incrementality study confirms the 21.5% reality gap estimate within reasonable error bands, the asset is highly investable at the revised price. We believe the value creation plan supports mid-to-high teens IRR over a four to five year hold. If the study surfaces a meaningfully wider gap, the deal warrants a pricing reset rather than a pass — the underlying brand and Spending Power profile remain attractive. The preliminary opinion was issued within 24 hours of data access; this final memo is issued at the 72-hour mark following the management session, consistent with the CTC diligence delivery standard.
CTC Pillar Scores
Diligence Scorecard
Revenue Quality
78
Customer Economics
62
Measurement Maturity
35
Marketing Durability
71
Creative Portfolio
66
Operational Excellence
84
Growth Capacity
69
Composite
66.4
/Haven & Co. · Live DashboardPowered by Statlas · Updated Apr 30, 2026
+0.30x above plan, +0.80x above peer median. Top-quartile ROAS in the apparel cohort. Spring seasonal lift in maternity and nursing is accelerating — this looks structural, not just timing.
Blended CAC
30-day rolling · all paid
Actual
$61
Plan
$68
Peers
$72
↑
$7 below plan, $11 below peer median. Apparel peer CAC is inflated by brands with heavy TikTok exposure — Haven's Meta-first structure is holding more efficiently.
Full scorecard — Haven vs plan vs apparel peer cohort
DTC Index Apr 2026 · anonymized brands · $70M–$110M LTM
Haven actual
Inv. plan
Peer median
MTD rev pacing
+15.3%
vs plan ↑
+8.0%
+6.4%
+8.9 pts ↑
New customers
4,210
+8.5% vs plan ↑
3,880
3,540
+19% vs peers ↑
Meta ROAS
3.8x
vs plan ↑
3.4x
2.9x
+0.90x ↑
Google ROAS
2.6x
–0.2x vs plan ↓
2.8x
2.7x
–0.1x vs peers
Email rev share
24%
on plan
24%
28%
–4 pts — opportunity
Revenue pacing — April 2026
Actual vs Statlas forecast. Shaded band = ±10% forecast range.
Actual
Plan
±10% band
Channel spend mix — MTD
$1.12M total. % of budget.
Meta68% · $762k
Google22% · $246k
TikTok7% · $78k
Other3% · $34k
/Traction Co. · Due Diligence ReportPartial Exit
Gross MOIC
3.1x
On $35M invested
Best in fund
Gross IRR
28.4%
Since Q1 2022 entry
▲ vs 22% target
LTM Revenue
$74M
+6.1% YoY
Partial Exit DPI
0.9x
Returned $31.5M to date
Full DD report available
Traction Co. was the fund's first close. The full diligence memo, Statlas forecast, and value creation plan are on file. Click below to load the complete report.
Capital Match
Anonymized brands actively in market or open to conversations, matched to your investment criteria
⌂
How this works. Brands in the Capital Match directory have opted in to being discoverable. They see your firm only as an anonymized profile (AUM band, vintage, sector focus) until they accept your introduction request. CTC facilitates the first conversation and removes itself once both sides connect. Brands cannot see firm-side messages and firms cannot see founder-side messages — the wall is enforced.
Your firm's status badge
Actively deploying
Set what your firm is open to right now. Visible to founders when you appear in their inbox or on your firm profile in their view. Auto-refreshes every 90 days so the signal stays accurate. You can change it any time.
Last updated Apr 22, 2026. Auto-refresh prompt in 66 days. Badges decay to "Selective" if not reaffirmed quarterly.
Vertical
Revenue
Growth
Readiness
Founder status
⊕ Save this search
BRD-2041 ★
Apparel · Performance & outdoor
87
Readiness
LTM Rev
$42M
YoY
+34%
EBITDA
18.4%
LTV/CAC
5.8x
Founder-led performance apparel brand with 4 years of consecutive growth. Strong wholesale and DTC mix (60/40). Two CTC diligence snapshots on file with measurable improvement across creative health and retention pillars.
Open to talk3 firms interested
BRD-1788
Beauty · Skincare
82
Readiness
LTM Rev
$28M
YoY
+22%
EBITDA
21.6%
LTV/CAC
6.2x
Clean beauty brand with strong subscription component. 78% repeat purchase rate within first 12 months. Founder open to growth capital partner with consumer ops experience. CTC diligence completed Mar 2026.
In marketLOI window Q3 2026
BRD-2104
Home · Bedding & bath
71
Readiness
LTM Rev
$56M
YoY
+11%
EBITDA
14.2%
LTV/CAC
4.1x
Mature home category brand with operational maturity but flat growth profile. Open to recapitalization or strategic partnership. Measurement maturity score of 68 indicates clean diligence path. Single snapshot on file.
Growth capitalRecap or strategic
BRD-1934
Baby & Kids · Apparel
79
Readiness
LTM Rev
$35M
YoY
+19%
EBITDA
16.8%
LTV/CAC
5.1x
Direct competitor positioning to Haven & Co. in adjacent sub-category. Strong creative volume and retention. Founder considering exit in next 12 to 18 months, exploring fit conversations now. Three diligence snapshots showing trajectory.
Open to talk1 firm interested
→
Introduction request to BRD-2041
Your firm's anonymized profile (Crestline Fund III · $340M AUM · Consumer-focused · 6 active portcos) will be sent to the founder. They have 7 days to accept, decline, or pass. If accepted, both sides reveal identity and CTC facilitates the first call within 5 business days.
BRD-2041 · Your anonymized profile
Your Exit Readiness
Tracked over time and benchmarked against the same DTC Index methodology used by 200+ firms in the hub. Improvements compound: brands that enter the directory with a 70+ score and run a quarterly snapshot cycle see roughly 2x the firm interest of one-time submissions.
87 / 100
Top quartile · Apparel
◉
Discoverable to firms — ON
Your anonymized profile (BRD-2041) is currently visible to firms whose investment criteria match your vertical, revenue band, and growth profile. They can see your readiness scores and metric ranges but not your name, founders, customer list, or specific data points outside the published bands.
Your status badge
Open to conversations
Set what you're open to right now. Visible to firms in your inbox and on your profile in their discovery feed. Auto-refreshes every 90 days so the signal stays accurate. You can change it any time.
Last updated Apr 18, 2026. Auto-refresh prompt in 62 days. Badges decay to "Watching" if not reaffirmed quarterly.
Measurement Maturity
91 / 100
Geo holdouts, MMM in place. Top decile in cohort.
Retention Health
86 / 100
LTV trending up across last 4 cohorts. 78% repeat in 12mo.
Each bar is a CTC diligence snapshot. Snapshots can be commissioned quarterly.
62
Jul '25
68
Oct '25
74
Jan '26
87
Apr '26
+25 points in 9 months. The biggest movers were Measurement Maturity (+34) following the geo holdout work in Q4, and Retention Health (+18) after the email program restructure. Financial Hygiene is the remaining lift area before a credible LOI conversation.
Firms interested in your profile
3 new
TRC
FIRM-0341 NewActively deploying
$340M AUM · Vintage 2022 · 6 portcos · Consumer focus · Has invested in 2 apparel brands at your stage
94%
Fit Score
JGN
FIRM-0118 NewActively deploying
$520M AUM · Vintage 2020 · 9 portcos · Consumer specialist · Operating partner experience in your sub-category
88%
Fit Score
SLA
FIRM-0227 NewBuilding thesis
$180M AUM · Vintage 2023 · 4 portcos · Family office capital · First-time consumer investor — looking for proof of CTC engagement
76%
Fit Score
BRD
FIRM-0089 Open to follow-on
$280M AUM · Vintage 2019 · 7 portcos · Consumer + retail tech · Saved you to watchlist 3 weeks ago
81%
Fit Score
Discovery preferences
Control which firms can find you. You can blacklist specific firms (competitors of your suppliers, firms you've already pitched, etc.) and tighten your visible revenue band if your vertical is small enough that the published range could identify you.
Concierge introductions
Upgrade to Founder Premium ($1,400/mo) for CTC-curated introductions to specific firms whose thesis matches your business. Includes one strategic positioning session and quarterly readiness coaching.