17 partner brands scored across 7 pillars. Source of truth: the Score, Komodo Path Brands and Rules tabs. Built for investment-committee review of portfolio health and acquisition fit.
Brands ranked by Komodo Path criteria met. Each brand is scored on 22 criteria as Green (met), Yellow (partial) or Red (not met). Toggle between raw Green count and Green as a share of available (non-blank) criteria so brands missing data aren't unfairly penalized.
Weighted score = Green×1 + Yellow×0.5 (Red and Blank = 0), per the Score tab. "Green % of available" = Green ÷ (Green + Yellow + Red), ignoring blanks.
The full Komodo Path Brands table, color-coded against the Rules thresholds. Hover any cell for its value, threshold and definition. Filter by pillar and region, or pick a brand to see its per-pillar profile.
Brands are sorted into four peer groups by a transparent, rule-based waterfall on the economics you can observe in diligence — injector & esthetician revenue per provider, utilization, retention, appointment completion, visit frequency and SPV. Each group reflects how the business actually makes money. LexRx and Bair have no numeric metrics and are listed separately as unassigned. See Methodology for the rules.
Enter what you know about a prospective acquisition — leave anything blank; the match uses only the fields you provide. It standardizes your inputs the same way the brands were standardized, places the prospect in its best-fit peer group, and names the three closest existing brands from the whole panel (any group), with the metrics that drive the match.
All inputs are single-quarter (~3-month) figures for the quarter selected above — injector & esthetician revenue per provider are quarterly totals per provider, matching how the partner brands are measured.
How every number on this dashboard is computed, and the choices behind the peer groups and the matcher — so the analysis is defensible in committee.
Each brand is scored on 22 criteria. Numeric metrics and Yes/No flags are graded Green / Yellow / Red against the thresholds in the Rules tab (e.g. Utilization green at 70–80%, Injector revenue green at ≥$200K). Yes/No flags are Green for Yes, Red for No. The weighted score is Green×1 + Yellow×0.5. Our color logic reproduces the workbook's Score tab exactly for all 17 brands. Blank cells mean data not available and are never counted as zero or as a Red.
We count blank metric cells per brand. Any brand with 6 or more blanks is tagged Incomplete everywhere it appears. Bair (9 blanks) and LexRx (8 blanks) are flagged — their lower scores reflect missing data, not poor performance. The "Green % of available" toggle on the scorecard divides only by non-blank criteria so they aren't unfairly sunk.
Approach: brands are sorted into four peer groups by a transparent, rule-based waterfall on the diligence-observable economics — not a black-box cluster. Each group reflects how the business actually makes money.
The four groups: Premium Injector Anchors (top-band injector rev/provider with healthy utilization); High-Velocity Injector Specialists (injector-dominant, negligible esthetician revenue, but above-median SPV, appointment completion and frequency); Balanced Full-Book Operators (top-band utilization with material revenue in both service lines and solid retention); and Underutilized Capacity Builders (below-median utilization and injector yield — the build-potential group).
Inputs used: injector & esthetician revenue per provider, utilization, retention, appointment completion, visit frequency and SPV. Internal Komodo-program flags (Slack, integrations, comp, training, marketing, etc.) are excluded — they describe post-acquisition integration, not what you'd observe in a target.
Flags & unassigned: Inbloom sits in Balanced Full-Book on utilization and esthetician revenue but is flagged as an esthetician-led exception (weak injector yield, 81% turnover, missing retention/frequency). LexRx and Bair have no numeric metrics and are left unassigned until their data fills in.
Your inputs are standardized with the same means and standard deviations used for the brands (Google rating and region are not used here). The prospect is placed in its best-fit peer group by distance to each group's center, and — separately — the three closest existing brands are drawn from the whole panel regardless of group. The write-up names those brands and points to the specific metrics where your numbers line up. Distances are averaged over only the fields you fill in, so partial inputs still work.
Within each group and overall, the best brand is the one with the highest weighted Score-tab score. Incomplete brands are eligible but labeled.