Unveiling the Data Behind Efficient Scaling in a 2023 Environment with ICONIQ Growth

2. Entrepreneurs Backing
Entrepreneurs
We partner with visionaries
defining the future
of their industries to
transform the world.

3. 3
Analytics & Insights
Empowering our portfolio with proprietary analytics and insights across business operations and strategy
Comprehensive, topical
reports leveraging
proprietary data to form
an evolving view of ‘best-
in-class’ performance
In-Depth Research &
Studies
Bespoke Analytics &
Advisory
Signal Identification &
Sourcing Intelligence
Bespoke analytics, one-on-
one advisory, and custom
tools to address high-
impact questions across
operations and strategy
Innovative approaches,
data partnerships, and
intelligence layer applied
to signal identification
and sourcing

4. 4
Methodology
Our analyses leverage quarterly
operating and financial data from 93
enterprise SaaS companies. All
ICONIQ Growth portfolio companies
were included where data was
available, and select public
companies were included based on
our IPO performance criteria.2
We also conducted a survey of 236
GTM executives at B2B SaaS
companies in March 2023 regarding
sales compensation and go-to-market
impact.3
Sample set of companies used varies
across pages based on data
availability.
Notes: (1) As of May 2023; Trademarks are the property of their respective owners. None of the companies illustrated have endorsed or recommended the services of ICONIQ; Select ICONIQ Growth companies included in the analysis are not shown
here due to privacy of investment. See a full list of portfolio companies here and in the appendix (2) For more information on methodology please refer to our 2022 Topline Growth & Operational Efficiency report (3) Surveys included responses from
some but not all ICONIQ Growth portfolio companies as well as companies not part of the ICONIQ Growth portfolio
Sources: Financial and operating data from select ICONIQ Growth enterprise SaaS investments and public data from certain SaaS IPOs that occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via Factset and quarterly earnings.
ICONIQ Growth Portfolio Companies1
Private Public or Acquired
Select Public
Companies

5. State of the Market

6. The IPO market has stalled and SaaS public multiples have dropped significantly to a median
of 5-6x
Median NTM Forward Revenue Multiple Over Time by Growth Rate
Public Enterprise SaaS Companies
9.9x
11.9x
25.6x
17.3x
8.6x
7.7x
7.2x
6.2x
12.8x 13.0x
6.8x
5.5x
3.1x 3.7x 4.3x
5.1x
2.0x
3.0x
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
IPO Count - 4 5 2 - 1 9 3 6 17 15 9 - - - - -
High NTM Revenue Growth [30%+]
Low NTM Revenue Growth [<15%]
Mid NTM Revenue Growth [15% - 30%]
Notes: Information provided accurate as of May 2023. Public multiples shown here reflect median by year for all SaaS companies that have gone public since 2H 2013
Sources: Financial and operating data from SaaS IPOs that occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via Factset and quarterly earnings.

7. % Beat against
Consensus (Median
Analyst Estimates)
% Raised Full-Year
Estimate
91%
3.2%
78%
1.2%
Q1 2022
N = 96
Q2 2022
N = 93
83%
57%
Q3 2022
N = 68
84%
60%
Q4 2022
N = 94
74%
N/A
Fewer public SaaS companies are raising guidance each quarter, with median beat and raise
also down since Q1 ‘22
Median Beat 2.1% 2.2% 2.1%
0.3% 0.5%
Median Raise
Beat & Raise – GAAPRevenue Expectations
Public Enterprise SaaS Companies
Q1 2023
N = 61
82%
1.5%
0.3%
55%
N/A
Notes: Information provided accurate as of May 2023
Sources: Financial and operating data from SaaS IPOs that occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via Factset and quarterly earnings.

8. Meanwhile, the balance in the importance of growth and efficiency has shifted with Rule of 40
becoming increasingly correlated to public multiples in the last year
Correlation (R2) of Forward Revenue Multiple (EV / NTM Revenue) to Key Metrics Over Time
Median, Public Enterprise SaaS Companies2
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Rule of 40
Revenue Growth
Notes: Information provided accurate as of May 2023
Sources: Financial and operating data from SaaS IPOs that occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via Factset and quarterly earnings.

9. Public software companies who meet or exceed the Rule of 40 command a forward multiple
double that of non-Rule of 40 companies
Forward Multiple vs Rule of 40, Q4 2022
Public Enterprise SaaS Companies
Rule of 40 (Last Quarter YoY Growth + FCF Margin)
EV
/
NTM
Revenue
Multiple
Scale (LTM Revenue)
0x
10x
20x
(80%) (40%) 0% 40% 80% 120%
Median EV/NTM Multiple for
Companies above Rule of 40:
7.4x
Median EV/NTM Multiple for
Companies below Rule of 40:
3.8x
Notes: Information provided accurate as of May 2023
Sources: Financial and operating data from SaaS IPOs that occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via Factset and quarterly earnings.

10. 2022 Actuals
2021 Actuals
As of Q1 As of Q2
103% 98%
2020 Actuals2 79% 68%
As of Q3
101%
62%
As of Q4
92%
81%
2019 Actuals2 ~100-105% ~90-95% ~90-95% ~95-100%
98%
87%
69%
66%
2%
13%
31% 34%
Attainment defined as actuals as % of
annual plan of net incremental
cumulative bookings1
Net New Bookings: Median Attainment vs. Plan
Information provided accurate as of May 2023
Sources: Financial and operating data from select ICONIQ Growth enterprise SaaS investments and public data from certain SaaS IPOs that occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via Factset and quarterly earnings.
Notes: (1) Reflects net CARR, run-rate bookings used where data available, otherwise net ARR or run-rate revenue used as proxy;
net number includes churn or lost revenue where applicable (2) Slightly different sample set used in analysis due to data availability (N=29 for 2019-2020 compared to N=52 for 2021-2022)
In contrast to a sharper V-shaped recovery in 2020, most companies saw continued
downward in 2022

11. 11
The ICONIQ Growth
Enterprise Five
1
2
3
4
5
ARR Growth
Net $ Retention
Rule of 40
Net Magic Number
ARR per FTE
TOPLINE
GROWTH
OPERATIONAL
EFFICIENCY
How quickly and consistently is ARR growing and
what are the drivers of new ARR?
How well is ARR being retained and how is the
quality and size of customers changing?
What is the burn associated with this growth
and the path to profitability?
What is the composition of spend and how
efficiently is it being used?
How efficiently is the team scaling to support
and further drive growth?
Through our research on top-line growth and efficiency we’ve identified five key metrics we
believe are strong indicators of a company’s overall health and long-term success

12. 106% 118%
67%
2017-2019 2020-2021 2022
126% 126% 113%
65% 65%
34%
1.2x 1.3x
0.9x
$198K
$215K $208K
YoY ARR Growth
Net Dollar Retention
Rule of 40
Net Magic Number
ARR per FTE
(43%)
(10%)
(48%)
(31%)
(3%)
When we look at our scorecard of the Enterprise 5 metrics in 2022 compared to prior years,
the macro impact to both growth and efficiency metrics has been significant
The Enterprise Five
Information provided accurate as of May 2023
Sources: Financial and operating data from select ICONIQ Growth enterprise SaaS investments and public data from certain SaaS IPOs that occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via Factset and quarterly earnings.
(Ending ARR – Prior Year ARR) / Prior Year ARR
(BOP ARR + expansion ARR - gross churn ARR) / BOP ARR
YoY ARR growth + FCF margin
Current Q net new ARR / prior Q S&M OpEx
EOP ARR / EOP FTEs
Top Quartile Benchmarks

13. Gross New as
% of BOPARR
Gross Churnas
% of BOPARR
Over the last few quarters, gross new ARR has deteriorated amidst macro volatility, with
preliminary Q1 results significantly below those of prior quarters
19% 17% 17% 15%
10%
-4% -4% -5% -5% -5%
2020
Q1
2020
Q2
2020
Q3
2020
Q4
2021
Q1
2021
Q2
2021
Q3
2021
Q4
2022
Q1
2022
Q2
2022
Q3
2022
Q4
2023
Q1
ARR Funnel by Calendar Quarter, % of Beginning ARR
Information provided accurate as of May 2023
Sources: Financial and operating data from select ICONIQ Growth enterprise SaaS investments and public data from certain SaaS IPOs that occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via Factset and
quarterly earnings.

14. This has been primarily driven by a decline in both new logo and expansion ARR with
expansion dollars seeing the biggest deterioration in the last year
13% 11% 10% 8% 7%
6%
6% 6%
7%
3%
-3% -2% -3% -3% -3%
-2% -2% -2% -2% -2%
2020
Q1
2020
Q2
2020
Q3
2020
Q4
2021
Q1
2021
Q2
2021
Q3
2021
Q4
2022
Q1
2022
Q2
2022
Q3
2022
Q4
2023
Q1
ARR Funnel by Calendar Quarter, % of Beginning ARR
Information provided accurate as of May 2023
Sources: Financial and operating data from select ICONIQ Growth enterprise SaaS investments and public data from certain SaaS IPOs that occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via Factset and
quarterly earnings.
Expansionas % of
BOPARR
New Logo as % of
BOPARR
Downsellas % of
BOPARR
Churnas % of BOP
ARR

15. Expansionas % of
BOPARR
New Logo as % of
BOPARR
Downsellas % of
BOPARR
Churnas % of BOP
ARR
ARR Funnel by Calendar Quarter, % of Beginning ARR
Top QuartileNet
DollarRetention
As a result, top quartile net dollar retention has dropped from peak levels of 120-140% in 2021
to 116% in Q4 2022, and as of Q1, it is down to 105%
2020
Q1
2020
Q2
2020
Q3
2020
Q4
2021
Q1
2021
Q2
2021
Q3
2021
Q4
2022
Q1
2022
Q2
2022
Q3
2022
Q4
2023
Q1
106% 115% 115% 123% 116% 121% 137% 126% 118% 115% 120% 116%
105%
Information provided accurate as of May 2023
Sources: Financial and operating data from select ICONIQ Growth enterprise SaaS investments and public data from certain SaaS IPOs that occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via Factset and
quarterly earnings.

16. Magic Number by Calendar Quarter
Efficiency metrics like magic number also decreased in 2022 as the slowdown in topline
outpaced any cuts in spend
1.4x
1.7x
1.7x
2.0x
1.9x 2.0x
2.1x
1.8x
1.1x
1.2x
1.0x 1.0x
1.2x
1.4x 1.3x
2.0x
1.9x
1.5x
1.8x
2.0x
1.3x
1.0x
0.9x 0.8x 0.8x 0.8x
2020
Q1
2020
Q2
2020
Q3
2020
Q4
2021
Q1
2021
Q2
2021
Q3
2021
Q4
2022
Q1
2022
Q2
2022
Q3
2022
Q4
2023
Q1
Gross Magic
Number
Net Magic
Number
Information provided accurate as of May 2023; Gross Magic Number defined as current quarter gross new ARR / prior quarter S&M OpEx and Net Magic Number defined as current quarter net new ARR / prior
quarter S&M OpEx
Sources: Financial and operating data from select ICONIQ Growth enterprise SaaS investments and public data from certain SaaS IPOs that occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via Factset and quarterly earnings.

17. Attainment defined as actuals as %
of annual plan of net incremental
cumulative bookings1
Net Incremental Bookings: Median Attainment vs. Plan
Select companies where data available across all periods
81%
92%
66%
100% 101%
84%
19%
8%
34%
16%
2020 2021 2022 Q1 2021 Q1 2022 Q1 2023
2
Q1 is typically a strong quarter for companies. However, this year we have seen significant
weakness in topline performance
Information provided accurate as of May 2023
Sources: Financial and operating data from select ICONIQ Growth enterprise SaaS investments and public data from certain SaaS IPOs that occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via Factset and quarterly earnings.
Notes: (1) Reflects net CARR, run-rate bookings used where data available, otherwise net ARR or run-rate revenue used as proxy;
net number includes churn or lost revenue where applicable (2) Slightly different sample set used in analysis due to data availability (N=29 for 2019-2020 compared to N=52 for 2021-2022)
Full Year Results First Quarter Results

18. Q1 2023 Attainment: Net New Topline vs Bottomline
Scale (2022 ARR or Revenue)
11% of companies
Beat topline plan
with more burn than
anticipated
Beat topline plan
with less burn than anticipated
26% of companies
26% of companies
Missed topline
with more burn than
anticipated
Missed topline
with less burn than
anticipated
37% of companies
Topline Attainment
Bottomline
Attainment
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
0% 50% 100% 150% 200%
63% of companies missed topline
plan for Q1. Companies that beat
plan were on average double the
size of those that missed plan.
63% of companies also burned
less than originally planned, with
no significant difference by scale.
Information provided accurate as of May 2023
Sources: Financial and operating data from select ICONIQ Growth enterprise SaaS investments and public data from certain SaaS IPOs that occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via Factset and quarterly earnings.
Notes: (1) Reflects net CARR, run-rate bookings used where data available, otherwise net ARR or run-rate revenue used as proxy;
net number includes churn or lost revenue where applicable

19. Q1 2023 Net New Topline Attainment by Sector
Companies in the vertical SaaS and GTM sectors saw the greatest deltas from original plan
<75%+ Q1 Attainment 42%
31% 33%
58%
100%
18%
23%
33%
17%
40%
46%
33%
25%
All Infrastructure,
Data & Security
Operations &
Collaboration
Vertical SaaS GTM
75-99% Q1 Attainment
100%+ Q1 Attainment
Information provided accurate as of May 2023
Sources: Financial and operating data from select ICONIQ Growth enterprise SaaS investments and public data from certain SaaS IPOs that occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via Factset and quarterly earnings.
Notes: (1) Reflects net CARR, run-rate bookings used where data available, otherwise net ARR or run-rate revenue used as proxy;
net number includes churn or lost revenue where applicable

20. Go-to-Market Health
The 2023 Blueprint
Burn Multiple
Employee Productivity
Runway
1
2
3
4

21. 21
In 2022, we saw early impact to leading GTM indicators which have now trickled down to
lower funnel metrics like retention and attainment
LONGER
SALES CYCLES
SLOWER
INBOUND
MORE
PIPELINE
DEGRADATION
2022 2022 TO 2023
CHANGE (MEDIAN)
LOWER
WIN RATES
LOWER
QUOTA
ATTAINMENT
LOWER
NET
RETENTION
2023
~(10-12%)
~(3-5%)
~(8-10%)
Information provided accurate as of March 2023
Source: Survey of 236 GTM executives at B2B SaaS companies in March 2023 regarding sales compensation and go-to-market impact
Notes: Medians of survey responses shown

22. It is critical to have a clear pulse on both sales team and individual rep attainment
2021
2023
ARR Scale
Top quartile
2023
70% 80% 80% 80%
% of Ramped AEs Who Hit Quota
2021 vs 2023 average by ARR scale
Information provided accurate as of March 2023
Source: Survey of 236 GTM executives at B2B SaaS companies in March 2023 regarding sales compensation and go-to-market impact
68% 67% 68%
50%
65% 64% 63%
59%
<$25M $25-$100M $100-$200M $200M+

23. $6M $22M $58M $100M
($12M) ($25M) ($57M) ($92M)
$5M $28M $62M $107M
($6M) ($24M) ($35M) ($68M)
Net New ARR
Net New ARR
FCF1
2020-2022
2017-2019
2020-22
2018-19 2020-22
2018-19 2020-22
2018-19 2020-22
2018-19
Burn Multiple: FCF / Net New ARR
1.2x
0.9x
0.6x 0.6x
2.0x
1.1x 1.0x 0.9x
<$25M $25-100M $100-200M $200M+
FCF1
Burn multiple skyrocketed in 2022 as SaaS companies started the year with a mindset of
growth at all costs. It’s now time to reorient to burn multiples of <1.5x which we saw pre-2020
2017-2019
2020-2022
Information provided accurate as of May 2023
Sources: Financial and operating data from select ICONIQ Growth enterprise SaaS investments and public data from certain SaaS IPOs that
occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via Factset and quarterly earnings.
Notes: (1) Implied FCF based on net new ARR and burn multiple

24. Median ARR and Annualized OpEx per FTE by Year and ARR Range
In the era of doing more with less, SaaS companies must keep a close eye on both
productivity and efficiency per FTE
ARR per FTE
$117K
$142K
$170K $185K
$102K
$138K
$171K
$204K
$227K $207K
$160K $161K
$219K $210K $200K $211K
<$25M $25-100M $100-200M $200M+
OpEx per FTE
As companies scale, ARR per FTE should increase while OpEx per FTE should decrease as companies gain leverage.
However, OpEx per FTE increased in the last 2 years.
2017-2019 2020-2022
Information provided accurate as of May 2023
Sources: Financial and operating data from select ICONIQ Growth enterprise SaaS investments and public data from certain SaaS IPOs that
occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via Factset and quarterly earnings.

25. 26 24 23 21
36
60
25 26 22 21
34
131
Median <$25M $25-75M $75-150M $150-250M $250M+
Expected Cash Runway in Months
Median by ARR Range
ARR or Revenue Range
Runway as of Q1 ‘23
Runway as of Q4 ‘22
Many SaaS companies are looking at 2023 as the year to break-even. Median runway today is
around 25 months, with many focused on finding additional ways to conserve liquidity
Jump in runway due to recent
fundraising rounds
Information provided accurate as of May 2023
Sources: Financial and operating data from select ICONIQ Growth enterprise SaaS investments and public data from certain SaaS IPOs that
occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via Factset and quarterly earnings.

26. Strategies to Navigate Today’s Environment

27. 27
Operating Performance Building Blocks Actions Taken
1
2
3
4
5
6
Pricing Changes
Embedding AI to Drive Efficiency
Identify Labor Arbitrage Opportunities via Offshoring
Organizational Rightsizing and Building a Performance
Management Discipline
Tool Rationalization
Strengthen
Foundation
Rethink
Operating
Model
Disrupt
the
Future
Hiring Slowdowns / Freezes
Companies have taken a variety of actions over the last few months to develop a lean
organizational muscle and execute against emerging opportunities
Sources: Financial and operating data as of Feb 2023 from select ICONIQ Growth enterprise SaaS investments and public data from certain SaaS IPOs that occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via press releases

28. 67% 67%
-24%
50%
42%
53%
-31%
40%
35%
11%
-23%
8%
28
2023 Plan vs Historical Actuals
Information provided accurate as of May 2023
Sources: Financial and operating data as of Feb 2023 from select ICONIQ Growth enterprise SaaS investments and public data from certain SaaS IPOs that occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via Factset and quarterly earnings
Notes: (1) Reflects ARR or revenue where available, or CARR, bookings otherwise used as proxy; (2) Reflects operating margin, EBIT, or EBITDA where available (3) Slightly different set of companies shown here due to data availability
Topline Growth1 YoY Growth in OpEx Operating or EBITDA Margin2
2021A
147% 64% 52% 117% 90% 24% 7% 1% 1% 226% 57% 24%
Top Quartile
Median 2022
YoY plan was
56%
2022A 2023P 2021A 2022A 2023P 2021A 2022A 2023P
SaaS companies are forecasting for more conservative growth in 2023 while meaningfully
focusing on reducing spend and headcount
2021A 2022A 2023P
YoY Growth in Headcount3

29. % of Companies that Implemented RIFs by Quarter
Cumulative % of companies by quarter, beginning in period Q1 ’22
Implemented RIF
Did not implement RIF
10%
18%
44%
68%
100%
90%
82%
56%
32%
Q1 '22 Q2 '22 Q3 '22 Q4 '22 Q1 '23
% of companies under Rule of 40 or
with less than 2 years runway 67% 83% 40%
91%
68% of companies analyzed have conducted RIFs since Q1 ‘22. In this environment, layoffs
and cost cutting are necessary measures for most companies to scale rather than a last resort
~14%
Median RIF Size
Most companies who
implemented RIFs are
not planning to grow
headcount this year
Information provided accurate as of May 2023
Sources: Financial and operating data from select ICONIQ Growth enterprise SaaS investments and public data from certain SaaS IPOs that
occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via Factset and quarterly earnings.

30. Beyond reducing headcount, companies are also focused on building a culture of efficiency
through active performance management and additional compensation levers
Bottomline Focused
Incentive Metrics
Top-down
Budgeting
Benefits
Utilization
Equity Program
Efficiency
Pay For
Performance
• Introduced performance culture at company offsite and
aligned organization around key profitability metrics for the
year
• Retooled headcount to focus on higher conviction bets
• Downsized GTM and People teams by 50% over last year
while pushing to get more out of R&D with less
• Chose not to do a RIF but instead put in place stricter
performance metrics to cut low performers
• Adjusted sales compensation strategy to introduce
minimum threshold of attainment at which commission
payouts kick-in for sales reps
• Looking at engineer utilization and productivity to
develop a similar compensation approach
Case Study:
Building a Culture of Performance
Case Study:
Adjustments to Compensation
Information provided accurate as of May 2023
Sources: Financial and operating data from select ICONIQ Growth enterprise SaaS investments and public data from certain SaaS IPOs that
occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via press releases

31. Offshoring has also become another popular option for companies looking to take advantage
of labor savings as well as access a broader talent pool
43%
14%
21%
7%
14%
Less than 25 FTEs
25-100 FTEs
100-200 FTEs
200-500 FTEs
500+ FTEs
When did you first start offshoring?
56%
% of Companies Increasing Offshoring Presence
In 2023 In 2024
61%
+25% +31%
YoY % Change in
Offshore FTEs
Information provided accurate as of May 2023
Sources: Financial and operating data from select ICONIQ Growth enterprise SaaS investments

32. Keep the Lights
On
New Capabilities
Quality
Improvements
Internal
Productivity
Keepthe Lights On (KTLO)
The minimum tasks required
to maintain the current level of
service in the eyes of our
customers
Elective Investments
New Capabilities
• Adding a new product
• Adding a new feature or sub-feature
Quality Improvements
• Customer requested improvements
• Improved product reliability or security
Internal Productivity
• Better developer tooling
• Work to reduce size of KTLO bucket in
the future
Engineering efficiency has historically been an area that has been hard to quantify. We
believe the most successful companies are starting to closely track developer productivity
Information provided accurate as of May 2023
Sources: Framework developed by ICONIQ Growth Technical Advisory Board

33. In addition to building a data-driven engineering organization, companies are capitalizing on
AI to drive both product growth and internal productivity
Most Common Internal Use Cases
• Writing marketing copy
• Note taking and call transcription
• Research
• Code reviews
• Customer support (e.g. chatbot)
% Companies with
AI-enabled Products
17%
% Companies using
AI for Internal Productivity
57%
Information provided accurate as of May 2023
Sources: Financial and operating data from select ICONIQ Growth enterprise SaaS investments and public data from certain SaaS IPOs that
occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via press releases

34. Key Takeaways (1 of 2)
The balance of focus on growth vs efficiency has shifted with Rule of
40 becoming increasingly correlated to public multiples. However,
growth is still important and companies should target growing
efficiently vs. growth-at-all-costs.
Performance across SaaS businesses declined in 2022 with topline
metrics seeing the greatest impact; efficiency metrics also
deteriorated as many companies did not scale back costs sufficiently
(or in time) to account for the macro headwinds
We have seen continued impact in the first half of this year with most
companies missing topline plan in Q1. Companies in the vertical SaaS
and go-to-market sectors have seen the greatest delta against plan.
Sources: Financial and operating data from select ICONIQ Growth enterprise SaaS investments and public data from certain SaaS IPOs that
occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via Factset and quarterly earnings.

35. Key Takeaways (2 of 2)
Cash conservation will be critical this year and we have seen this
reflected in median runways of ~25 months which have remained
constant each quarter.
Companies are deploying a variety of tactics to navigate the current
environment, across foundational changes like hiring slowdowns
and tool rationalization to broader operating model changes via
RIFs and offshoring.
In addition to RIFs, it is important to build a culture of efficiency and
“doing more with less” via performance management, staffing, or
other compensation levers.
Many companies are also embracing AI to accelerate both their
product and internal organization productivity.
Sources: Financial and operating data from select ICONIQ Growth enterprise SaaS investments and public data from certain SaaS IPOs that
occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via Factset and quarterly earnings.

36. 36
Engineering in a Hybrid World
The data behind high-functioning engineering organizations
The SaaS Glossary
A guide to understanding and tracking key SaaS metrics
The ICONIQ Growth Enterprise Five
Key performance indicators of Enterprise SaaS companies
Assessing Go-to-Market Health in 2022-2023
Tracking and understanding the health of your go-to-market engine
2022 Topline Growth & Operational Efficiency
The data behind scaling a B2B SaaS business
Hiring Your Next Head of Finance
Four key considerations for hiring your next CFO
Find this content and more at iconiqgrowth.com/insights

37. Thank You

38. Disclosure
UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS PRESENTATION ARE THOSE OF ICONIQ GROWTH ("ICONIQ" OR THE "FIRM"), ARE THE RESULT OF PROPRIETARY
RESEARCH, MAY BE SUBJECTIVE, AND MAY NOT BE RELIED UPON IN MAKING AN INVESTMENT DECISION. INFORMATION USED IN THIS PRESENTATION WAS OBTAINED FROM
NUMEROUS SOURCES. CERTAIN OF THESE COMPANIES ARE PORTFOLIO COMPANIES OF ICONIQ GROWTH. ICONIQ GROWTH DOES NOT MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS OR
WARRANTIES AS TO THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THESE SOURCES.
THIS PRESENTATION IS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE INVESTMENT ADVICE OR AN OFFER TO SELL OR A SOLICITATION OF AN OFFER TO
BUY ANY SECURITIES WHICH WILL ONLY BE MADE PURSUANT TO DEFINITIVE OFFERING DOCUMENTS AND SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENTS, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY
INVESTMENT FUND OR INVESTMENT PRODUCT REFERENCED HEREIN.
ANY REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION OF THIS PRESENTATION IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OR THE DISCLOSURE OF ANY OF ITS CONTENTS, WITHOUT THEPRIOR CONSENT OF
ICONIQ, IS PROHIBITED.
THIS PRESENTATION MAY CONTAIN FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS BASED ON CURRENT PLANS, ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS. THE RECIPIENT OF THIS PRESENTATION ("YOU")
ARE CAUTIONED THAT A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT FACTORS COULD CAUSE ACTUAL RESULTS OR OUTCOMES TO DIFFER MATERIALLY FROM THOSE EXPRESSED IN, OR IMPLIED BY,
THE FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS. THE NUMBERS, FIGURES AND CASE STUDIES INCLUDED IN THIS PRESENTATION HAVE BEEN INCLUDED FOR PURPOSES OF ILLUSTRATION
ONLY, AND NO ASSURANCE CAN BE GIVEN THAT THE ACTUAL RESULTS OF ICONIQ OR ANY OF ITS PARTNERS AND AFFILIATES WILL CORRESPOND WITH THE RESULTS
CONTEMPLATED IN THE PRESENTATION. NO INFORMATION IS CONTAINED HEREIN WITH RESPECT TO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, WHICH MAY BE SIGNIFICANT. THE PORTFOLIO
COMPANIES AND OTHER PARTIES MENTIONED HEREIN MAY REFLECT A SELECTIVE LIST OF THE PRIOR INVESTMENTS MADE BY ICONIQ.
CERTAIN OF THE ECONOMIC AND MARKET INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN MAY HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM PUBLISHED SOURCES AND/OR PREPAREDBYOTHER PARTIES.
WHILE SUCH SOURCES ARE BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE, NONE OF ICONIQ OR ANY OF ITS AFFILIATES AND PARTNERS, EMPLOYEES AND REPRESENTATIVES ASSUME ANY
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACCURACY OF SUCH INFORMATION.
ALL OF THE INFORMATION IN THE PRESENTATION IS PRESENTED AS OF THE DATE MADE AVAILABLE TO YOU (EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED),AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE
WITHOUT NOTICE, AND MAY NOT BE CURRENT OR MAY HAVE CHANGED (POSSIBLY MATERIALLY) BETWEEN THE DATE MADE AVAILABLE TO YOU AND THE DATE
ACTUALLYRECEIVED OR REVIEWED BY YOU. ICONIQ ASSUMES NO OBLIGATION TO UPDATE OR OTHERWISE REVISE ANY INFORMATION, PROJECTIONS, FORECASTS OR
ESTIMATES CONTAINED IN THE PRESENTATION, INCLUDING ANY REVISIONS TO REFLECT CHANGES IN ECONOMIC OR MARKET CONDITIONS OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES ARISING
AFTER THE DATE THE ITEMS WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO YOU OR TO REFLECT THE OCCURRENCE OF UNANTICIPATED EVENTS.
FOR AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT, ICONIQ IS NOT ACTING AS AN ADVISER OR FIDUCIARY IN ANY RESPECT IN CONNECTION WITH PROVIDING THIS PRESENTATION AND NO
RELATIONSHIP SHALL ARISE BETWEEN YOU AND ICONIQ AS A RESULT OF THIS PRESENTATION BEING MADE AVAILABLE TO YOU.
ICONIQ IS A DIVERSIFIED FINANCIAL SERVICES FIRM AND HAS DIRECT CLIENT RELATIONSHIPS WITH PERSONS THAT MAY BECOME LIMITED PARTNERS OF ICONIQ FUNDS.
NOTWITHSTANDING THAT A PERSON MAY BE REFERRED TO HEREIN AS A "CLIENT" OF THE FIRM, NO LIMITED PARTNER OF ANY FUND WILL, IN ITS CAPACITY AS SUCH, BE A CLIENT OF
ICONIQ. THERE CAN BE NO ASSURANCE THAT THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY ANY ICONIQ FUND WILL BE PROFITABLE OR WILL EQUAL THE PERFORMANCE OF PRIOR INVESTMENTS
MADE BY PERSONS DESCRIBED IN THIS PRESENTATION.
Copyright © 2023 ICONIQ Capital, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

40. Appendix

41. A global portfolio of category-defining businesses
These companies represent the full list of companies that ICONIQ Growth has invested in since inception through ICONIQ Strategic Partners funds as of the date these materials were published (except those subject to confidentiality obligations).
Trademarks are the property of their respective owners. None of the companies illustrated have endorsed or recommended the services of ICONIQ.
ICONIQ Growth

42. Pricing Models across Companies
57%
14%
13%
13%
2%
Subscription
Hybrid
Usage-based Pricing
Other
Usage-based
Subscription
80%
13%
7%
No Change
Considering
Change
Changed
Pricing
% of Companies Considering Changes to Pricing Model
% of Respondents
Some companies are also reconsidering pricing strategy to drive expansion
Information provided accurate as of May 2023
Sources: Financial and operating data from select ICONIQ Growth enterprise SaaS investments and public data from certain SaaS IPOs that
occurred during 2H 2013 –2021 via Factset and quarterly earnings.

43. Usage-based pricing has gained in popularity over the last few years, allowing companies to
better predict revenue and improve customer expansion
Befor
e
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
[CE
LLR
AN
GE]
[CE
LLR
AN
GE]
[CE
LLR
AN
GE]
[CE
LLR
AN
GE]
[CE
LLR
AN
GE]
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Rise of Usage-Based Pricing
From March 2023 Bain survey of 156 SaaS companies
Most companies
introduced
usage-based
pricing in last 5
years
When did your company first introduce a product or
service with usage-based pricing?
Q On a scale of 1-5, how likely is your company to adopt usage-
based pricing in the next three years?
Q
Not Likely
Extremely Likely
~50% of
respondents
without
usage-based
pricing are
also very
likely to
introduce in
next 3 years
What do you perceive as the primary benefits or drivers for
incorporating usage-based pricing?
Q
Acquire more customers
with different pricing
model
Increasecustomer
satisfaction with our
products
Make profit more
predictable
Capture more potential
revenue from existing
customers
Compete more effectively
with customers
58%
50%
50%
42%
33%
Information provided accurate as of March 2023
Sources: March 2023 Bain survey of 156 SaaS companies

44. While usage-based pricing has seen historically stronger retention than other pricing models,
usage-based pricing companies also saw the most volatility and biggest drop in retention
over the last year compared to other archetypes
Net Dollar Retention by Pricing Model
Select private SaaS companies
Subscription
N = 34
Usage-based Pricing
N = 5
Usage-based Subscription
N = 7
111%
145%
106%
109%
123%
109%
109%
121%
114%
104%
114% 118%
Q1 ‘22 Q2 ‘22 Q3 ‘22 Q4 ‘22 Q1 ‘22 Q2 ‘22 Q3 ‘22 Q4 ‘22 Q1 ‘22 Q2 ‘22 Q3 ‘22 Q4 ‘22
Information provided accurate as of May 2023
Sources: Financial and operating data from select ICONIQ Growth enterprise SaaS investments