What Makes a Peer? Valuation-Anchored Similarity in Private Markets

As more investors contemplate private markets and contend with limited transparency, sparse disclosures, and infrequent transactions, identifying economically meaningful peer companies for comparison is a fundamental challenge for valuation, due diligence, portfolio construction, and risk management. We propose an ensemble tree-based supervised similarity learning framework that defines company similarity through the lens of market valuation rather than static feature matching or semantic descriptions. Specifically, we train a CatBoost gradient-boosted decision tree model on observed private company valuations and derive a valuation-aware similarity metric from importance-weighted leaf-node co-occurrences across the ensemble. The similarity metric captures shared valuation drivers while accommodating nonlinear relationships, mixed data types, and pervasive missing data common in private markets. Using a global private-market universe of approximately 270,000 companies, including more than 53,000 firms with observed or derivable post-money valuations spanning multiple industries, geographies, and deal stages, we demonstrate that the proposed similarity framework improves upon traditional distance-based and text-embedding-based approaches in downstream k-nearest-neighbor valuation tasks in the evaluated industry groups, while retaining case-based explainability.

GAUGE: Grading Agent-Built Financial Models Without a Golden Answer

Financial models combine public disclosures with analyst assumptions to produce forecasts and valuations. While some components can be checked mechanically, forecasts, discount rates, and target prices often admit multiple reasonable answers. Existing benchmarks nevertheless tend to grade such outputs against a single expert reference. Using independently built analyst models for the same companies, we find that across 108 directed pairs covering 65 companies, the median single-reference score is 0.33, 92.6% score below 0.70, and no same-vintage pair agrees on implied price within 10%. Point-tolerance grading can therefore penalize disagreement already present among professionals. We introduce GAUGE, a benchmark for evaluating agent-built valuation models against observed analyst practice rather than a single point answer. GAUGE uses 1,001 vendor-classified analyst workbooks and a 196-task evaluation set, with a three-layer observed-practice envelope, 56 auditable facets, eight validity gates, and deterministic structural checks. We validate the benchmark with a 55-participant known-groups study, company-grouped cross-fitting, and judge-stability audits. On the failure-aware score $φ_0$, senior analysts average 88.3, juniors 66.0, and finance students 43.2. Across 24 agents and 1,011 scored generations, the best agent scores 53.4, above the student mean but below every senior and most juniors. It passes 93% of mechanical facets and 78% of judgment facets, with a fleet-median gap of 26 points. Current agents are substantially stronger at model construction than valuation judgment. We release the methodology, a gated de-identified data tier, a controlled training split, a versioned 48-task evaluation core, and a withheld refresh pool.