I
f you are buying or selling a cannabis business in 2026, every instinct you developed in normal business transactions will mislead you. Standard valuation frameworks — EBITDA multiples, discounted cash flow, comparable transactions — all apply, but they apply in a market that is structurally unlike any other regulated industry. The cannabis business valuation process is shaped by license scarcity, Section 280E tax distortion, and state regulatory requirements that determine what can even be transferred and how. Get those fundamentals wrong and you will either overpay by millions or leave money on the table. This guide covers the core valuation methodologies, the unique distortions of the cannabis market, and what actually drives price in a real transaction.
What You’ll Learn
The Four Core Valuation Methods
Cannabis business valuations draw on four primary methodologies. No single method tells the complete story — sophisticated buyers and sellers use all four as cross-checks.
Revenue multiple: Applied to trailing twelve months (TTM) of gross revenue. Cannabis dispensary revenue multiples in 2025–2026 typically range from 0.5x to 1.5x TTM revenue for single-store operations, with premium locations and limited-license markets commanding higher multiples. Revenue multiples are quick and useful for sanity-checking a price, but they tell you nothing about profitability or cost structure.
EBITDA multiple: The most commonly cited valuation benchmark in cannabis M&A. EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) multiples for cannabis dispensaries have compressed significantly since the 2019–2021 peak. Single-store dispensaries in 2025–2026 typically trade at 3x to 6x normalized EBITDA. Multi-store operators with operational infrastructure can attract 6x to 10x EBITDA in the right market. The key word is “normalized” — buyers adjust EBITDA for owner compensation, one-time expenses, and 280E add-backs to get to a clean economic earnings figure.
Asset-based valuation: Particularly relevant for cultivators and manufacturers where physical assets — grow equipment, processing infrastructure, real property — represent a significant portion of value. For dispensaries, asset-based valuation often floors a deal price (the minimum a seller will accept) but rarely drives headline valuation in a competitive market.
Comparable transactions: What did similar businesses sell for? Cannabis M&A transaction data is more available today than it was five years ago, but comparables are still limited by market (a Colorado dispensary comp tells you little about a Virginia license), structure (APA vs. MIPA pricing differs meaningfully), and vintage (2021 multiples are not 2026 multiples). When using comps, weight recent transactions in the same state heavily and discount everything else.
EBITDA Multiples in Cannabis: What the Numbers Really Mean
The EBITDA multiple conversation in cannabis is complicated by two factors that rarely affect conventional retail businesses: 280E tax treatment and the requirement to “normalize” EBITDA for the unique cost structure of a cannabis operation.
Standard EBITDA normalization adjusts for:
- Owner compensation above market rate: If the owner-operator pays themselves $400,000 in a business that would cost $120,000 to replace with a manager, the excess $280,000 is added back to EBITDA.
- One-time or non-recurring expenses: Legal fees from a one-time licensing dispute, build-out costs that won’t recur, startup costs embedded in early operating periods.
- Above or below market rent: If the business owns its real estate and pays below-market rent to itself, or rents from a related party at above-market rates, the delta is adjusted.
- 280E add-backs: This is where cannabis differs. Buyers and sellers often present a “pre-280E” or “cash EBITDA” that adds back the incremental taxes paid as a result of 280E disallowance. This inflates the EBITDA figure relative to a conventional business, which means cannabis EBITDA multiples are not directly comparable to multiples in other industries even when the headline number looks familiar.
The practical implication: a cannabis dispensary trading at “4x EBITDA” may be significantly more expensive than a conventional retailer at “4x EBITDA” if the cannabis figure uses a pre-280E add-back. Buyers should insist on seeing both the raw GAAP EBITDA and the normalized EBITDA, and understand which one is being used in the multiple presented by the seller’s broker.
Why License Value Dominates the Price
Here is the single most important thing to understand about cannabis business valuation in a limited-license state: the license is worth more than the cash flows it generates today. The license is not an asset that depreciates or can be replicated by writing a bigger check. It is an administratively scarce asset created by a state regulatory body that controls the supply.
In a state where regulators have issued 25 dispensary licenses statewide and are not issuing more, a dispensary generating $1.5 million in annual revenue with thin margins might sell for $4 million to $6 million. A naive cash flow analysis would say that makes no sense. The market says it makes perfect sense, because the license holder has something that cannot be duplicated — and the acquirer is paying for future optionality, not just trailing cash flow.
The license value premium is highest when:
- License issuance is capped with no new rounds in sight. The fewer licenses in a state, the more each one is worth in isolation.
- The market is early. A license in a state that just launched adult-use with limited operators is worth more than the same license after the market matures and competition normalizes margins.
- Geographic positioning is strong. A license in a high-traffic retail corridor in a major metro commands a premium over the same license in a rural market with the same revenue today.
- The acquirer can create operational synergies. Multi-state operators (MSOs) and regional chains will pay more for a license than an independent operator, because they can spread administrative costs and bring supply chain advantages.
Sellers in limited-license markets should understand that the license value premium is their leverage — and that leverage erodes if the state opens a new licensing round, expands the total number of licenses, or decriminalizes in a way that reduces the scarcity premium.
How 280E Distorts Cannabis Valuations
Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits cannabis businesses from deducting ordinary business expenses because cannabis remains a Schedule I controlled substance federally. The only deduction available is cost of goods sold (COGS). This creates a tax burden that conventional businesses simply do not face — and it affects valuation in several ways.
First, it suppresses after-tax cash flows. A dispensary with $3 million in revenue and $250,000 in economic net income might pay federal income taxes on $1.2 million in gross profit (revenue minus COGS), resulting in a federal tax bill of $250,000 or more — effectively wiping out all net income on a pre-state-tax basis. This is why fewer than 25% of U.S. cannabis operators are currently profitable on an after-tax basis despite generating meaningful revenue.
Second, it creates complexity in how buyers model returns. A private equity buyer with sophisticated tax counsel may structure the acquisition to maximize COGS allocation post-closing, potentially improving after-tax cash flows versus the seller’s historical performance. That creates a divergence between what the business is worth to the seller (who has been living under 280E for years) and what it is worth to a strategic buyer who knows how to optimize around it.
Third, if federal rescheduling or descheduling occurs, 280E would no longer apply — and the after-tax cash flows of every cannabis business would improve dramatically. Buyers in 2026 who believe federal reform is coming are already pricing that optionality into acquisition bids. Sellers who are skeptical of federal reform should not leave that premium on the table without understanding why it is being offered.
Deal Structure and Its Effect on Valuation
In cannabis, the deal structure is not a detail — it is often the deal. The two primary structures are the Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) and the Membership Interest Purchase Agreement (MIPA), and they create meaningfully different economics for both buyer and seller.
Under an APA, the buyer acquires specified assets — inventory, equipment, customer lists, trade names — and assumes only explicitly listed liabilities. The buyer gets a tax step-up on acquired assets, which allows for depreciation and amortization deductions going forward. The seller recognizes ordinary income on inventory and depreciated assets, and capital gains on goodwill and other capital assets.
Under a MIPA, the buyer acquires the LLC membership interest itself — the entire legal entity, including all known and unknown liabilities. The seller receives capital gains treatment on the full proceeds, which is typically more tax-efficient. More importantly for cannabis: the state-issued license is an asset of the legal entity. In most states, an APA triggers a change-of-ownership review or requires a new license application. A MIPA may allow the license to transfer with the entity, subject to regulatory approval of the ownership change.
The license continuity issue is the dominant reason cannabis acquisitions are structured as MIPAs when possible. A deal that falls apart because the regulator won’t approve a license transfer — or that requires the buyer to sit in a queue for a new license application — is a broken deal regardless of how good the economics looked on paper. For a detailed comparison of these structures, see our guide on APA vs. MIPA in cannabis transactions.
What Buyers Verify Before Closing
Cannabis due diligence covers everything in a conventional M&A process plus a cannabis-specific regulatory and compliance layer that has no equivalent in other industries. Buyers who skip the cannabis-specific layer regularly inherit problems that kill the acquired business post-closing.
Financial due diligence must verify at minimum three years of point-of-sale records, tax returns, and cash reconciliation. Cannabis businesses have high cash transactions — cash reconciliation gaps are a red flag for both financial irregularity and potential regulatory exposure.
Regulatory due diligence verifies that the license is in good standing with no pending violations, enforcement actions, or unresolved inspection findings. A license with an open compliance investigation may be unsaleable or may require regulatory approval that won’t be granted until the matter is resolved. Buyers should request the complete licensing file and all regulatory correspondence from the seller, not just a summary.
Operational due diligence assesses inventory accuracy, seed-to-sale tracking compliance, security system condition, and key employee retention risk. A dispensary whose revenue is driven by one star budtender who plans to leave post-closing is a different business than one with a strong team and documented customer loyalty.
We assist buyers and sellers navigating the full cannabis acquisition process. For guidance specific to your state and transaction size, see our cannabis consulting services or schedule a consultation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a realistic EBITDA multiple for a cannabis dispensary in 2026?
Single-store cannabis dispensaries in 2026 typically trade at 3x to 6x normalized EBITDA. Premium locations, limited-license markets, and multi-store operations can command 6x to 10x. These multiples have compressed significantly from the 2019–2021 peak. Buyers should verify whether EBITDA figures presented include 280E add-backs, which can inflate the multiple relative to conventional retail benchmarks.
How does a cannabis license affect the purchase price?
In limited-license states, the cannabis license is typically the most valuable asset in the transaction and often drives the purchase price well above what cash flow analysis alone would justify. License value is highest when issuance is capped, the market is early-stage, and geographic positioning is favorable. A license in a state that has issued 20 total dispensary licenses is worth dramatically more than an equivalent business in an open-license state.
Should cannabis acquisitions use an APA or MIPA structure?
Most cannabis acquisitions are structured as MIPAs (Membership Interest Purchase Agreements) because the state-issued license is an asset of the legal entity — a MIPA allows the license to transfer with the entity subject to regulatory approval, rather than triggering a new license application. Sellers also typically prefer MIPAs because they receive capital gains treatment on proceeds. An APA may be preferred when a buyer wants to acquire specific assets and avoid unknown liabilities.
Next Steps
Cannabis business valuation is not a spreadsheet exercise — it is a combination of financial modeling, regulatory intelligence, and market positioning that requires experience in both cannabis-specific deal structures and state-level licensing law. The operators who get it right in 2026 are those who understand the license value premium, build their EBITDA analysis around realistic 280E assumptions, and structure transactions to survive regulatory review.
Collateral Base has guided cannabis operators through acquisitions, valuations, and licensing strategy in over 30 states. Schedule a consultation to discuss your specific transaction or market.
Disclaimer: This content is for general informational purposes regarding cannabis business valuation concepts as of 2026. It does not constitute legal or financial advice. Cannabis laws, tax regulations, and market conditions vary by state and change frequently. Consult qualified legal and financial professionals before making business decisions.
