GTLB · Forward model
Revenue by vertical, 20 quarters out
Model as of
Each segment is projected from its own operating driver, rolled up into consolidated cash flow, and discounted back to a fair value per share. The assumptions below are editable — change them and every number on this page moves with them.
GitLab operates one reportable segment, so there is no segment profitability anywhere in its filings. What it does report, on the face of every income statement since the IPO, is two revenue lines with their own cost of revenue: Subscription - self-managed and SaaS, and License - self-managed and other. Those two lines are this model's verticals, and all twenty-two historical points across eleven quarters are filed figures that sum to reported total revenue to the dollar in every quarter; none is estimated and none is apportioned. Below that line nothing is disclosed: no SaaS-versus-self-managed split, no revenue or ARR for GitLab Duo or the Duo Agent Platform, no geographic revenue, no line-level operating margin, and no total addressable market of any kind. The subscription driver uses Base Customers, GitLab's own defined count of customers paying more than $5,000 of annual recurring revenue, disclosed each quarter for the last seven; the addressable pool of 45,000 is assumed and never binds. The EBITDA margins are calibrated cash margins solved back from reported adjusted free-cash-flow conversion, not reported operating margins, because the engine has no concept of stock-based compensation. The split of GitLab's guided quarter across the two lines applies one implied year-over-year rate to both, which is a modelling choice the company has never made. The $400 million buyback authorised in March 2026 is a financing use of cash with no place in this engine; it appears only in the share count.
Latest: $440M (2032Q1E)
| Period | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024Q3 | $150M |
| 2024Q4 | $164M |
| 2025Q1 | $169M |
| 2025Q2 | $183M |
| 2025Q3 | $196M |
| 2025Q4 | $211M |
| 2026Q1 | $215M |
| 2026Q2 | $236M |
| 2026Q3 | $244M |
| 2026Q4 | $260M |
| 2027Q1 | $264M |
| 2027Q2E | $274M |
| 2027Q3E | $280M |
| 2027Q4E | $294M |
| 2028Q1E | $294M |
| 2028Q2E | $304M |
| 2028Q3E | $311M |
| 2028Q4E | $326M |
| 2029Q1E | $327M |
| 2029Q2E | $337M |
| 2029Q3E | $345M |
| 2029Q4E | $360M |
| 2030Q1E | $362M |
| 2030Q2E | $373M |
| 2030Q3E | $381M |
| 2030Q4E | $397M |
| 2031Q1E | $399M |
| 2031Q2E | $411M |
| 2031Q3E | $420M |
| 2031Q4E | $437M |
| 2032Q1E | $440M |
What drives each segment
Subscription - self-managed and SaaS
Subscribers × ARPU90.6% of revenue and effectively the whole equity story. GitLab recognises this line ratably across self-managed subscriptions and its SaaS offering, and it publishes the two things a subscription driver needs: Base Customers, its own defined count of customers paying more than $5,000 of annual recurring revenue, and a dollar-based net retention rate that says what the existing base does to its spending. Both have decelerated for seven straight quarters - customer growth from 16% to 7%, retention from 124% to 117% - while revenue still grew 23%, because the base keeps trading up: $100,000-ARR customers grew 18% and $1 million-ARR customers 26%. So the driver has to carry almost all of its growth in revenue per customer rather than in customer count, and that is exactly what the fiscal 2027 guide implies.
Latest: $415M (2032Q1E)
| Period | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024Q3 | $131M |
| 2024Q4 | $142M |
| 2025Q1 | $151M |
| 2025Q2 | $163M |
| 2025Q3 | $175M |
| 2025Q4 | $186M |
| 2026Q1 | $194M |
| 2026Q2 | $213M |
| 2026Q3 | $223M |
| 2026Q4 | $234M |
| 2027Q1 | $239M |
| 2027Q2E | $247M |
| 2027Q3E | $255M |
| 2027Q4E | $262M |
| 2028Q1E | $270M |
| 2028Q2E | $278M |
| 2028Q3E | $286M |
| 2028Q4E | $295M |
| 2029Q1E | $303M |
| 2029Q2E | $311M |
| 2029Q3E | $320M |
| 2029Q4E | $329M |
| 2030Q1E | $338M |
| 2030Q2E | $347M |
| 2030Q3E | $356M |
| 2030Q4E | $365M |
| 2031Q1E | $375M |
| 2031Q2E | $385M |
| 2031Q3E | $394M |
| 2031Q4E | $405M |
| 2032Q1E | $415M |
Assumptions & reasoning
- Every quarter of this history is a filed number off the face of a condensed consolidated statement of operations, read from seven separate 8-K exhibits in which each quarter appears twice - once as the current quarter and once as the following year's comparative - and every overlap agrees to the dollar. Nothing here is estimated and nothing was apportioned.
- ARPU here is a monetisation index for the Base Customer cohort, not an average contract value. The line also carries revenue from customers below the $5,000 ARR threshold and from professional services, so this figure is higher than any customer actually pays. It is internally consistent because it is derived from, and reconciles back to, the same disclosed revenue line.
- The 40.6% EBITDA margin is a CALIBRATED CASH margin, not a reported operating margin, and reading it as one will mislead. GitLab's non-GAAP operating margin was 14% in the basis quarter and 17% for fiscal 2026. Adjusted free cash flow ran far above that - $219.6m on $955.2m of fiscal 2026 revenue, or 23.0% - because roughly $200m a year of stock compensation is non-cash. This engine has no concept for that, so the calibration lives in the margin: solving 23.0% = (E - 1.0% capex) x (1 - 22% tax) gives 30.5% consolidated, adding back the 10.0% corporate overhead line gives 40.5% at vertical level, and splitting that across the two lines by the disclosed gross-margin gap puts this one at 40.6%.
- The engine's ARPU drift is a single constant. Holding 1.80% a quarter for twenty quarters implies 7.4% a year of expansion forever, which a net retention rate that has fallen one point in each of the last seven quarters would not sustain indefinitely. This is the model's main extrapolation risk, and it is why the bear case moves growth rather than only the multiple.
- This vertical carries no seasonality. Factors fitted by ratio to a centred four-quarter moving average come out at 0.9877 / 1.0062 / 1.0069 / 0.9992 - a signal of 1.92 points against a worst window-to-window spread of 1.34 points, which is not separable from noise. There is a real mechanism pointing the same way, since GitLab's fiscal Q1 runs 1 February to 30 April and is 89 or 90 days against 92 for the other three, but that alone is worth under a point on a ratable line and is absorbed into the ARPU drift.
License - self-managed and other
Growth path9.4% of revenue and the lumpy half of the income statement. This line carries the portion of a self-managed term licence recognised up front on delivery, plus other revenue, so it lands in the quarter a contract is signed rather than spreading across it. That makes it visibly seasonal - GitLab's fiscal fourth quarter, its largest renewal quarter, has run about 17% above trend in every year observed - and it makes it the wrong line to drive with customers or ARPU, because GitLab discloses no unit, seat, contract count or price for it anywhere. It grew 7.7% in fiscal 2026 against 26% for the company, then jumped 24% in the basis quarter, and over eleven quarters it has shrunk from 12.5% of revenue to 9.4%.
Latest: $25M (2032Q1E)
| Period | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024Q3 | $19M |
| 2024Q4 | $22M |
| 2025Q1 | $18M |
| 2025Q2 | $19M |
| 2025Q3 | $21M |
| 2025Q4 | $26M |
| 2026Q1 | $20M |
| 2026Q2 | $23M |
| 2026Q3 | $21M |
| 2026Q4 | $26M |
| 2027Q1 | $25M |
| 2027Q2E | $27M |
| 2027Q3E | $25M |
| 2027Q4E | $31M |
| 2028Q1E | $24M |
| 2028Q2E | $26M |
| 2028Q3E | $25M |
| 2028Q4E | $31M |
| 2029Q1E | $24M |
| 2029Q2E | $26M |
| 2029Q3E | $25M |
| 2029Q4E | $31M |
| 2030Q1E | $24M |
| 2030Q2E | $26M |
| 2030Q3E | $25M |
| 2030Q4E | $32M |
| 2031Q1E | $24M |
| 2031Q2E | $27M |
| 2031Q3E | $26M |
| 2031Q4E | $32M |
| 2032Q1E | $25M |
Assumptions & reasoning
- Same provenance as the subscription line: eleven consecutive quarters read off the face of the income statement in seven 8-K exhibits, summing with the subscription line to reported total revenue in every one of those quarters, to the dollar. Nothing is estimated.
- The seasonal factors are fitted by ratio to a centred four-quarter moving average and have a mechanism behind them, not just a shape: up-front licence recognition concentrates in the fiscal fourth quarter, GitLab's largest renewal and booking quarter. The raw series shows it without any smoothing - fiscal Q4 licence revenue of 21.8, 25.9 and 26.1 million against the fiscal Q3 immediately before it of 18.7, 20.8 and 21.1 million in each of the three years observed. The signal is 27.4 points against a worst window-to-window spread of 8.4 points.
- The weakness worth stating is that only one fiscal Q4 sits inside the centred-average window, so the 1.1734 factor rests on one smoothed observation supported by three raw ones. It is the reason the model needs seasonality at all: without it the January quarter is understated by roughly $5 million and the three around it are overstated.
- The 25.6% EBITDA margin is the consolidated calibrated 40.5% less the disclosed gross-margin gap between the two lines - 87.2% on subscription against 72.2% here in the basis quarter, a 15.0-point difference reported every quarter on the face of the income statement. Carrying that gap down to EBITDA unchanged is a modelling choice, not a disclosure: operating expenses are shared and GitLab allocates none of them, so no line-level operating margin exists in any filing.
- GitLab guides only total revenue and has never guided either line. The split of the guided quarter used to calibrate this model applies the same implied year-over-year rate to both prior-year lines, which is an explicit assumption and not something the company has said.
Where each case comes from
Bear case — primary sources
The primary sources this case is built from — filings, calls and posts. Where they are claims by an interested party rather than disclosures, every number in the Bear column is what happens if they are taken at face value.
Seven quarters of decelerating volume metrics
- Jun 2, 2026 Customers with more than $5,000 of ARR reached 10,831, an increase of 7% year-over-year.
- Jun 2, 2026 Dollar-Based Net Retention Rate was 117%.
- Dec 5, 2024 Customers with more than $5,000 of ARR reached 9,519, an increase of 16% year-over-year.
- Dec 5, 2024 Dollar-Based Net Retention Rate was 124%.
Bull case — primary sources
The primary sources this case is built from — filings, calls and posts. Where they are claims by an interested party rather than disclosures, every number in the Bull column is what happens if they are taken at face value.
Contracted work running ahead of the guide
- Jun 2, 2026 Total RPO grew 18% year-over-year to $1.1 billion, while cRPO grew 24% to $724.1 million.
- Jun 2, 2026 Customers with more than $100,000 of ARR reached 1,519, an increase of 18% year-over-year.
- Mar 3, 2026 Customers with more than $1 million of ARR reached 155, an increase of 26% year-over-year.
Act 2 case — primary sources
The primary sources this case is built from — filings, calls and posts. Where they are claims by an interested party rather than disclosures, every number in the Act 2 column is what happens if they are taken at face value.
The restructuring GitLab announced with the basis quarter
- Jun 2, 2026 GitLab also announced it is reducing its full-time workforce by approximately 14%, or 350 team members to realign its operating structure to optimize execution against its strategic priorities.
- Jun 2, 2026 GitLab also expects to exit 22 countries to reduce its team member geographic footprint by approximately 37%.
- Jun 2, 2026 It estimates that it will incur approximately $30 million to $35 million in pre-tax restructuring charges, consisting primarily of one-time severance, employee termination benefit costs, and retention costs associated with the execution of the Plan, of which approximately $19 million is expected to be incurred in the second quarter of fiscal year 2027
From cash flow to fair value
| Present value of free cash flow, 20 quarters | $1.39B |
| Terminal-year revenue | $1.71B |
| Terminal-year EBITDA | $620M |
| Exit multiple, on revenue | 4.5x |
| Terminal value | $7.69B |
| Discounted at 10.0% a year, terminal value becomes | $4.77B |
| Enterprise value | $6.17B |
| Net cash | $1.36B |
| Equity value | $7.53B |
| Shares | 0.17B |
| Fair value per share | $44.57 |
| Against the deployed price of $46.54, as of | -4% |
10% on a business with $1.36 billion of cash and short-term investments, no borrowings of any kind and no financing need. The exit multiple is by far the largest lever here, and it has to be, because 77% of enterprise value sits in the terminal: GitLab trades at 6.5 times trailing revenue today and the base case exits the horizon at 4.5 times, a deliberate 30% derating for a line growing about 9% a year by then and converting roughly 28% of revenue to cash. Holding everything else, 3.5x gives $38.29 a share, 4.0x $41.43, 4.5x $44.57 and 5.0x $47.71 - a full turn of the multiple is worth about $6.30, more than a third of the gap between the bear and the base case. A point on the discount rate is worth about $1.50: 9% gives $46.10 and 11% gives $43.12. The 22% tax rate is GitLab's own stated projected non-GAAP rate for fiscal 2026 and 2027, not an assumption of ours.
Read the other way round: at $46.54 the market is paying 4.8x terminal-year revenue, holding every other assumption on this page fixed. That is the number to argue about.
The projected path
| Quarter | Subscription - self-managed and SaaS | License - self-managed and other | Revenue | YoY | EBITDA | Capex | FCF | R40 | PV of FCF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2027 Q2E | $247M | $27M | $274M | +16% | $81M | $3M | $61M | +38 | $60M |
| 2027 Q3E | $255M | $25M | $280M | +15% | $85M | $3M | $64M | +38 | $61M |
| 2027 Q4E | $262M | $31M | $294M | +13% | $90M | $3M | $68M | +36 | $63M |
| 2028 Q1E | $270M | $24M | $294M | +11% | $93M | $3M | $70M | +35 | $64M |
| 2028 Q2E | $278M | $26M | $304M | +11% | $97M | $3M | $73M | +35 | $65M |
| 2028 Q3E | $286M | $25M | $311M | +11% | $101M | $3M | $76M | +36 | $66M |
| 2028 Q4E | $295M | $31M | $326M | +11% | $106M | $3M | $80M | +35 | $68M |
| 2029 Q1E | $303M | $24M | $327M | +11% | $109M | $3M | $82M | +36 | $68M |
| 2029 Q2E | $311M | $26M | $337M | +11% | $113M | $3M | $86M | +36 | $69M |
| 2029 Q3E | $320M | $25M | $345M | +11% | $117M | $3M | $89M | +37 | $70M |
| 2029 Q4E | $329M | $31M | $360M | +11% | $123M | $4M | $93M | +36 | $72M |
| 2030 Q1E | $338M | $24M | $362M | +11% | $126M | $4M | $95M | +37 | $71M |
| 2030 Q2E | $347M | $26M | $373M | +11% | $130M | $4M | $99M | +37 | $72M |
| 2030 Q3E | $356M | $25M | $381M | +11% | $134M | $4M | $102M | +37 | $73M |
| 2030 Q4E | $365M | $32M | $397M | +10% | $140M | $4M | $106M | +37 | $74M |
| 2031 Q1E | $375M | $24M | $399M | +10% | $143M | $4M | $108M | +38 | $74M |
| 2031 Q2E | $385M | $27M | $411M | +10% | $148M | $4M | $112M | +38 | $75M |
| 2031 Q3E | $394M | $26M | $420M | +10% | $152M | $4M | $116M | +38 | $75M |
| 2031 Q4E | $405M | $32M | $437M | +10% | $158M | $4M | $120M | +38 | $76M |
| 2032 Q1E | $415M | $25M | $440M | +10% | $161M | $4M | $123M | +38 | $76M |
Every row is projected. A year-over-year change is shown only where the quarter it compares against exists — an em dash means there is no comparable quarter, not a flat year.
Model revisions
Assumptions are marked to reality as each quarter prints. Every change is appended here, with the fair value the model produced at the time, so the model's own history stays visible.
| Date | Fair value then | Note |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-08-31 | $44.57 | First model. Built on the fiscal 2027 Q1 basis quarter, one day before GitLab reports fiscal 2027 Q2 on 1 September 2026, so the guided quarter this model reproduces becomes a testable actual almost immediately. The calibration lands Q2 fiscal 2027 at $273.9 million inside the guided $272-274 million, and fiscal 2027 at $1,112.0 million at the bottom of the guided $1,112-1,118 million; the two cannot both be hit at their midpoints by one smooth driver, because the full-year guide implies second-half sequential acceleration that the quarterly guide alone does not. |