Valuation in Emerging Markets: Why Your Comparable Set Is Wrong

8 min read

Dariia VasylievaFounder & CEO, GETVISION

If your comparable set is built from US seed rounds, it is wrong. Not because your company is weaker, but because the investor buying your shares carries a different risk, a different exit route and a different cost of capital.

Carta reported a median seed post-money valuation of $24 million in Q4 2025 on its platform, which is dominated by US companies. That number describes a market with deep follow-on capital and many acquirers. It does not describe Bishkek, Tashkent or Almaty.

Early-stage valuation is not a fact about your company. It is the price at which a specific investor can still reach their target return, given the risk and the exit they can see. Get the comparable set right and the number follows.

Key takeaways

US platform medians describe a different market, with deeper follow-on capital and more buyers, so they are an outer bound at best.
Country risk is measurable: Damodaran's January 2026 data puts Kyrgyzstan's total equity risk premium at 12.64%, against 4.46% for the US.
A longer path to exit lowers what an investor can pay today, even when the expected multiple is the same.
No single method is enough, so triangulate with the scorecard method, the VC method and regional comparables.
You defend a valuation with one page of reasoning, not with a number borrowed from someone else's market.

Why Silicon Valley comps mislead

US valuation data is the easiest to find, which is exactly why it ends up in emerging-market decks. It fails as a benchmark for four reasons.

The distribution is skewed. Carta's data shows the 95th-percentile seed valuation reaching about $200 million in Q2 2026, up from $72.2 million a year earlier. Outliers that large tell you about a handful of rounds, not about your price.
The exit market is different. A US seed investor can underwrite many possible acquirers and a public market. In Central Asia the realistic buyers are fewer, which is why exit planning starts at seed.
The cost of capital is different. Investors price country risk into every deal, whether or not they show the math.
The follow-on chain is different. A US seed price assumes a Series A market waiting behind it. RISE Research's 2026 report puts venture capital deployed in 2025 at $209 million in Kazakhstan (about $79 million without its largest round), $99 million in Uzbekistan and about $3 million in Kyrgyzstan (more in our Central Asia market data). Where the next round is harder to raise, the seed investor carries that risk and prices it in.

A comparable is only useful if it shares your exit market.

Adjusting for country risk and liquidity

Country risk

Aswath Damodaran's country risk data at NYU Stern, updated in January 2026, adds a country premium to a mature-market equity risk premium of 4.23%. For Central Asia the gap is wide.

Country	Moody's rating	Country risk premium	Total equity risk premium
United States	Aa1	0.23%	4.46%
Kazakhstan	Baa1	2.07%	6.30%
Uzbekistan	Ba3	4.66%	8.89%
Kyrgyzstan	B3	8.41%	12.64%

These premiums are built for listed equities, and early-stage investors rarely plug them into a formula. They still show the direction and rough size of the adjustment. An investor backing a company in Bishkek needs more return than one backing the same company in Austin, and the entry price has to make room for it.

Liquidity and time

Time to exit matters as much as the multiple. A 10x return over seven years is an internal rate of return of about 39% a year. The same 10x over ten years is about 26%.

If exits in your market take longer, an investor who needs the same annual return must buy in at a lower price. That is not pessimism about your company. It is arithmetic about your market.

Currency

If revenue is in local currency and the investor measures returns in dollars, a devaluation cuts the exit value in dollar terms even when the business grows. Founders with dollar revenue, or a credible path to it, should show it clearly, because it narrows the discount. Our framework for pricing currency, country and exit risk covers the mitigants in detail.

The methods used at early stage

The scorecard method

The scorecard method starts from the average pre-money valuation of comparable pre-revenue deals in the same region, then adjusts it by weighted factors. The standard weights are management team up to 30%, size of opportunity 25%, product and technology 15%, competitive environment 10%, marketing and sales channels 10%, need for additional investment 5% and other factors 5%.

The method is only as good as its baseline. Use a regional average and it works. Use a US average and it simply imports the wrong market with extra steps.

The VC method

Work backward from the exit. Estimate a realistic exit value for your market, divide it by the investor's target multiple, and adjust for the dilution their stake will absorb in later rounds.

An illustrative case: a realistic regional exit of $80 million, a 10x target and 40% expected dilution before exit give a post-money valuation today of about $4.8 million (80 divided by 10, multiplied by 0.6). Change the exit assumption and the valuation moves with it, which is why the exit estimate needs evidence.

Comparable transactions and the Berkus method

Comparable transactions use prices from similar recent rounds and exits, at the same stage and in a similar risk band. Normalize before comparing: a SAFE cap is not a priced valuation, and our guide to SAFEs, notes and priced rounds explains why.

The Berkus method assigns up to $500,000 to each of five risk-reducing elements: a sound idea, a prototype, a quality team, strategic relationships and product rollout or sales. Its published version caps the result at $2 million before rollout and $2.5 million after. Those caps were set for US angel deals, so treat them as a structure, not as local prices.

Method	How it works	Best for	Weak spot
Scorecard	Regional average, adjusted by weighted factors	Pre-revenue angel rounds	Depends on the regional baseline
VC method	Exit value over target multiple, net of dilution	Seed with a visible exit route	Exit estimate drives everything
Comparable transactions	Prices from similar recent rounds and exits	Markets with enough deal data	Thin data in frontier markets
Berkus	Fixed value per risk removed	Very early, pre-revenue	Caps ignore local price levels
Discounted cash flow	Present value of projected cash flows	Revenue-stage, predictable businesses	Early projections are guesses

Building a comparable set that holds up

A defensible comparable set is built in a fixed order, with every step written down.

Start regional: priced rounds and exits in your country and its neighbors, at the same stage.
Widen by risk band, not by geography: markets with similar country risk and exit depth are closer comparables than a larger market next door.
Use global listed peers only for revenue multiples, then discount them for size, liquidity and country risk.
Normalize for instrument and round size before comparing any numbers.
Record every source and adjustment in the assumptions sheet of your financial model.

The result is usually a range, not a point. A range with sources is stronger in a negotiation than a precise number nobody can trace.

How to defend a valuation without overreaching

Three habits cost founders credibility faster than a low number does.

Anchoring on US medians

What it looks like: "Seed rounds are priced at this level in the US, so we are too."

Why it hurts: The investor stops trusting the rest of the deck, because the first number they checked came from the wrong market.

The fix: Lead with regional comparables and explain any premium with evidence: dollar revenue, a strong team, traction a regional peer does not have.

Using market size as a price

What it looks like: A large market slide offered as the reason for the valuation.

Why it hurts: Market size is a reason to invest at all. It says nothing about what this company is worth today.

The fix: Tie valuation to traction, team and a credible exit, and keep market size where it belongs.

Trading terms for a headline number

What it looks like: Accepting a heavy liquidation preference or anti-dilution ratchet to keep a high valuation.

Why it hurts: The headline looks good, but founders receive less at a modest exit, and the next round inherits the terms.

The fix: Prefer clean terms at a fair price. When GETVISION ASIA prepares investor materials, the page of reasoning comes before the number, and the terms are read alongside it.

Frequently Asked Questions

Triangulate: use the scorecard method with a regional baseline, the VC method with a realistic regional exit, and recent comparable transactions at the same stage. Present a range with sources rather than a single number.

It is the extra return investors require for equity exposure to a specific country, on top of a mature-market premium. Damodaran's January 2026 data puts it at 2.07% for Kazakhstan, 4.66% for Uzbekistan and 8.41% for Kyrgyzstan.

Only as an outer bound. US medians reflect deeper follow-on capital, more acquirers and a lower cost of capital, so a regional investor will discount them heavily.

Angels often use the scorecard and Berkus methods for pre-revenue companies, and the VC method once an exit route is visible. Most cross-check the result against recent deals they have seen locally.

No. A valuation the next round cannot support risks a flat or down round, and a high headline bought with heavy preferences can pay founders less at a modest exit than a lower, clean price.