Do smaller buy-and-builds outperform large ones
This blog is in the Top 25 M&A blogs worldwide according to Feedspot.
In the evolving landscape of strategic growth, the question of whether smaller buy-and-build initiatives outperform larger, sweeping acquisitions is increasingly relevant for executives and investors alike. Large-scale deals can deliver immediate market share gains and undeniable visibility. But a disciplined series of smaller, targeted acquisitions — each paired with a deliberate integration plan — often proves more sustainable and adaptable in dynamic industries.
The good news for practitioners is that this is no longer just a matter of opinion. The evidence base has become unusually clear.
What the Evidence Actually Says
The most systematic answer comes from the acquisition-programme research reproduced in McKinsey's Valuation, which deliberately steps away from single-deal announcement effects and instead classifies companies by the pattern of their M&A activity. The latest cut examined 2,000 non-banking companies from 2013 to 2022 and sorted them into four groups: programmatic acquirers (an average of two or more, often smaller or mid-size, acquisitions per year), large-deal acquirers (at least one deal larger than 30% of their own value), organic companies, and selective acquirers (Valuation, 8th Edition, McKinsey & Company).
Programmatic acquirers performed best on median total shareholder return relative to peers. Just as importantly, their distribution of outcomes was the most positively and tightly skewed — meaning not only a better median, but less dispersion around it. The earlier edition of the same research, covering 1,645 companies from 2007 to 2017, put programmatic outperformance at roughly 0.9% TSR per year, with large-deal companies performing worst of all four categories (Valuation, Koller, Goedhart & Wessels).
Two refinements matter more than the headline. First, results varied by industry: large acquisitions tended to succeed in slower-growing, mature sectors where removing excess capacity genuinely creates value, while large deals in faster-growing sectors underperformed significantly — the inward focus required to integrate a big target diverted management from continual product innovation. Only programmatic acquirers tended to outperform across most industries. Second, the same body of work cites research by Fich, Nguyen and Officer finding that large companies acquiring small companies create more value than large companies buying large ones (Valuation, Koller, Goedhart & Wessels).
For software and technology buyers in particular, that industry qualifier is the operative sentence. In a sector where the roadmap is the asset, an integration effort large enough to absorb senior management's attention for eighteen months is not a neutral cost.
Why Cadence Beats Size
The mechanism behind the numbers is capability, not luck. As Bradley, Hirt and Smit put it in Strategy Beyond the Hockey Stick, M&A "requires mastery of capabilities through repeated deals... Companies that execute programmatic M&A over years, often decades, become true masters of the art of identifying, negotiating, and integrating acquisitions. Companies that do very few deals struggle to execute well the few they do" (Strategy Beyond the Hockey Stick).
Their definition of the winning pattern is worth keeping as a design constraint: at least one deal per year, cumulatively amounting to more than 30% of market capitalisation over ten years, with no single deal exceeding 30% of market cap. In other words, the total commitment can be transformational; the individual bets must not be.
The pipeline discipline behind that cadence is equally instructive. Corning maintains an M&A pipeline five to ten times its annual target for acquired revenue — doing three deals a year means running due diligence on twenty companies and submitting five bids. Axel Springer, the German publisher, executed 67 mostly small acquisitions between 2006 and 2012 alongside 90 organic launches and eight divestments, repositioning itself for the digital age and delivering a 10% CAGR in total shareholder return over the decade (Strategy Beyond the Hockey Stick).
That is the real argument for smaller deals: not that any individual small deal is superior, but that only small deals can be repeated often enough to build an institutional muscle.
The Structural Advantages, Restated
Agility and cadence. Smaller targets can be identified, evaluated and integrated faster, compressing the disruptive window and keeping the growth narrative continuous rather than episodic.
Lower integration risk. Incremental integrations let leadership test strategic assumptions in near real time and course-correct. Learning happens in small iterations rather than in one irreversible bet.
Portfolio effect. Execution risk is spread across multiple deals, business units and customer segments instead of concentrated in a single mega-deal.
Organisational coherence. Smaller acquisitions can absorb best practices without wholesale rupture, reducing employee churn, customer disruption and brand dilution.
Valuation asymmetry. In private-equity buy-and-build, the arithmetic is explicit: a platform expected to exit at 8x EBITDA that buys a $10m EBITDA add-on at 6x books an immediate multiple accretion of roughly $20m — and that accretion applies not only to purchased EBITDA but to all future EBITDA growth from the add-ons during the hold (Restructuring the Hold, Anderson & Habner).
Anderson and Habner also catalogue the other add-on value sources that transfer cleanly to corporate acquirers: commercial growth from cross-selling, new capabilities and leadership talent, operational synergies from redundant resources, and scale economies from consolidated procurement. Their caveat is blunt: add-ons "should by no means be considered a slam-dunk" and can represent one of the biggest risks a sponsor and portfolio company undertake (Restructuring the Hold). There are, they note, "no plug-and-play solutions" — integration remains creative, situational work.
Where Buy-and-Build Still Fails
The failure base rate for M&A generally is sobering, and it does not exempt small deals. Consultancy studies compiled in the Wiley Encyclopedia of Management report failure rates clustering between roughly 48% and 66%, with recurring causes: overestimating synergy, overpayment, absent post-acquisition planning, slow integration pace, weak strategy, poor communication and culture clash (Wiley Encyclopedia of Management). Kotter, Akhtar and Gupta note that reported non-success rates range from 50% to 70%, with one 2011 study putting it as high as 70–90%, and that the most obvious failures they observe occur at the integration stage (Change, Kotter et al.).
A programme therefore needs governance that is proportionally stronger than the size of any single deal would suggest:
A single strategic thesis. Every acquisition must advance a defined objective — geographic reach, product adjacency, margin, or customer base. Without a throughline, a programme fragments into a conglomerate.
A stage-gate that resists deal momentum. Advisers are incentivised to close; a consistently applied stage-gate and a risk-adjusted view of synergies is the counterweight (The Stress Test Every Business Needs).
The integration playbook as a diligence deliverable. Boards increasingly ask for the integration plan during due diligence rather than after signing, and diligence should focus on the target's future operating model — including cultural fit, onboarding and acclimation — rather than only its history (The Stress Test Every Business Needs).
Systems discipline. A "Tower of Babel" of one ERP, accounting and payroll stack per acquisition does enormous damage to a combined company — a risk that compounds precisely because small deals are frequent.
Capital discipline and measurement loops. A steady flow of accretive deals requires realistic valuation benchmarks, funding for integration as well as purchase price, and a KPI set that lets leadership recalibrate the programme deal by deal.
The Hybrid Reality
The most useful nuance in the Valuation research is that the two strategies are not mutually exclusive. Among companies that did create value through large transactions, four commonalities appeared: they paired a large-deal approach with a programmatic one, they had a healthy corporate culture, they possessed a genuine source of competitive advantage, and they focused on revenue growth while continually resetting cost baselines (Valuation, 8th Edition).
That is the practical conclusion. A few selective, sizeable acquisitions can establish core scale or a capability that cannot be assembled piecemeal; a continuous stream of bolt-ons fills gaps, accelerates market entry and captures adjacencies. The large deal buys the position. The programme builds the machine that makes the position pay.
Conclusion
Smaller buy-and-build programmes do outperform large one-off acquisitions on the available evidence — but the causality runs through repetition, not through size itself. Frequency builds the sourcing pipeline, the valuation discipline, the integration playbook and the cultural muscle memory that separate programmatic acquirers from occasional ones. Organisations that treat each bolt-on as a bespoke event will inherit the failure rates of the general M&A population. Those that treat the programme as a repeatable operating capability will find that the cumulative effect of well-executed smaller acquisitions yields a more resilient, adaptable and measurable trajectory than a single large consolidation.
—————————————————————————-
Sources referenced in this article are drawn from Wiley professional publications, including McKinsey & Company's Valuation (8th Edition, 2025) and Koller, Goedhart & Wessels' Valuation; Bradley, Hirt & Smit, Strategy Beyond the Hockey Stick; Anderson & Habner, Restructuring the Hold; Leleux, van Swaay & Megally, Private Equity 4.0; Kotter, Akhtar & Gupta, Change; Cooper (ed.), Wiley Encyclopedia of Management; Greene et al., The Stress Test Every Business Needs.
Dr. Karl Michael Popp is an M&A expert and author specializing in software company acquisitions.Contact: +49 6202 5829917 | www.drkarlpopp.com
Parts of this blog might be AI generated
