Med-Spa Market Analysis (National)

Total Prospects

4,489

A-Grade Targets

789

States Covered

Avg Acq. Score

68.1

Avg Yelp Rating

4.4

★

CEO Overview — Investment Verdict

Opportunity Size

$652.4M portfolio revenue

789 A-grade locations

Expected Returns

16–43% IRR range

3.4x base MOIC

Capital Required

$267.2M total

$191.1M equity check

Top Risks

Data Gaps

Only 4 of 12 data layers populated. Key signals (talent, real estate, deposits) may be missing.

Talent Pipeline Unknown

Healthcare JOLTS data not ingested — cannot assess labor supply risk for aesthetics practitioners.

Fragmented Market

Med-spa roll-ups face integration complexity — no single platform has achieved national scale.

Acquisition Cadence: Yr 1: Platform acquisition (top 50) | Yr 2: Scale to 200 locations | Yr 3-5: Full portfolio build + exits

4 of 12 data layers populated Last refresh: 2026-03-04

Executive Summary

Nexdata has identified 4,489 med-spa acquisition prospects across 22 states, scored using a 5-factor weighted composite model combining ZIP-level affluence data (IRS SOI), Yelp consumer signals, and competitive density analysis.

Investment Thesis: Aesthetics Roll-Up

789 A-grade and 3,176 A/B-grade prospects identified as high-conviction acquisition targets
Top target markets: CA (1065), TX (381), NY (365), FL (362), PA (351)
Average acquisition score: 68.1/100 across all prospects
Average Yelp rating: 4.4 stars with 48 avg reviews per location
Market coverage: 17% of A-grade affluent ZIPs already have discoverable prospects

Grade A Prospects

789

17.6% of total pipeline

Grade B Prospects

2,387

53.2% of total pipeline

Grade C Prospects

713

15.9% of total pipeline

Grade D Prospects

409

9.1% of total pipeline

Grade F Prospects

191

4.3% of total pipeline

Ownership Breakdown

Independent

3,512

Multi-Site

977

PE-Backed

Public

Independent3,51278%

Multi-Site97722%

PE-Backed00%

Public00%

Independent

3,512

78% of prospects

Multi-Site

977

Chain / franchise

PE-Backed

Portfolio companies

Public

Publicly traded

Ownership Intelligence: 78% of prospects (3,512) are independent — the primary roll-up target pool. 0 prospects are already PE-backed or public and should be deprioritized for acquisition.

Market Map

Visual distribution of prospects by geography, grade, and score.

Prospects by State (Top 15)

1,065

381

365

362

351

341

331

212

188

152

145

129

110

100

Grade Distribution

Grade A

789

Grade B

2,387

Grade C

713

Grade D

409

Grade F

191

Grade A78918%

Grade B2,38753%

Grade C71316%

Grade D4099%

Grade F1914%

Score Distribution (10-pt Buckets)

20-29

30-39

363

40-49

193

50-59

222

60-69

1,228

70-79

1,650

80-89

751

90-99

So What: The prospect universe of 4,489 locations across 22 states is large enough to build a multi-hundred-location platform. Concentration in CA, TX, NY supports a CA-first acquisition strategy with geographic diversification in Year 2+.

Top Acquisition Targets

25 highest-scoring A/B-grade prospects ranked by composite acquisition score.

#	Name	City	State	Score	Grade	Type	Rating	Reviews	ZIP Grade	Price
1	Next Health	Los Angeles	CA	96	Grade A	Multi-Site (2)	4.8	239	Grade A	$$$
2	SkinSpirit - Presidio Heights SkinSpirit	San Francisco	CA	96	Grade A	Multi-Site	4.7	230	Grade A	$$$$
3	Kenneth Bermudez, MD	San Francisco	CA	94	Grade A	Independent	4.7	107	Grade A	$$$$
4	Cheng Plastic Surgery	Saratoga	CA	94	Grade A	Multi-Site (2)	4.9	443	Grade A	$$
5	Cure	Malibu	CA	93	Grade A	Independent	4.6	117	Grade A	$$$
6	ASAP IVs	Pleasanton	CA	93	Grade A	Independent	4.9	555	Grade A	$$
7	Liquid Beauty	Huntington Beach	CA	93	Grade A	Independent	4.9	1,217	Grade A	$$
8	FUTURE Vanity/Novelty	Oakland	CA	93	Grade A	Independent	4.8	231	Grade A	$$
9	Next Health	West Hollywood	CA	92	Grade A	Multi-Site (2)	4.8	405	Grade A	$$$$
10	Satori Laser - Upper East Side Satori Laser	New York	NY	92	Grade A	Multi-Site (2)	4.9	245	Grade A	$$
11	Marion Pernoux	San Francisco	CA	92	Grade A	Independent	4.9	431	Grade A	$$
12	Blackhawk Plastic Surgery & MedSpa	Danville	CA	92	Grade A	Independent	4.3	472	Grade A	$$$
13	Nuansa Spa	New York	NY	92	Grade A	Independent	4.7	291	Grade A	$$$
14	Mara's Med Spa-Uptown Mara's Med Spa	Dallas	TX	92	Grade A	Multi-Site	4.7	464	Grade A	$$
15	Aesthetic MdR	Marina Del Rey	CA	92	Grade A	Independent	4.7	241	Grade A	$$
16	RejuvaYou Medical	South Pasadena	CA	92	Grade A	Independent	4.7	363	Grade A	$$
17	Idan Med Spa	San Francisco	CA	92	Grade A	Multi-Site (2)	4.9	179	Grade A	$$$
18	LaserAway	Newport Beach	CA	92	Grade A	Multi-Site (28)	4.7	299	Grade A	$$
19	Satori Laser - Union Square Satori Laser	New York	NY	92	Grade A	Multi-Site	4.8	412	Grade A	$$$
20	SkinSpirit - Noe Valley SkinSpirit	San Francisco	CA	92	Grade A	Multi-Site	4.8	189	Grade A	$$$
21	Blue Water Spa	Oyster Bay	NY	91	Grade A	Multi-Site (2)	4.6	75	Grade A	$$$
22	Calabasas Med Spa	Calabasas	CA	91	Grade A	Independent	4.6	147	Grade A	$$$
23	Brett Stompro, MD & Chester Cheng, MD	Danville	CA	91	Grade A	Independent	4.6	561	Grade A	$$
24	Seven:Thirty Seven	Berkeley	CA	91	Grade A	Multi-Site	4.7	333	Grade A	$$$
25	Cosmetic Injectables Center Medspa	Sherman Oaks	CA	91	Grade A	Independent	4.8	602	Grade A	$$$

Insight: 20 of the top 25 targets are in CA. Average score among top targets: 92.3.

Concentration Risk: CA represents 80% of top targets. A CA-first platform strategy is viable but creates single-state regulatory risk. Consider diversifying into TX, FL, or NY for Year 2 bolt-on acquisitions to mitigate geographic concentration.

Market Concentration Analysis

Understanding competition density and geographic distribution of targets.

Top ZIPs by Prospect Density

ZIP	City	State	Prospects	Avg Score	ZIP Score
76092	Southlake	TX	48	61.7	99.4
92660	Newport Beach	CA	46	72.1	99.1
37067	Franklin	TN	44	53.2	94.0
32960	Vero Beach	FL	37	41.3	68.6
34102	Naples	FL	36	53.8	99.7
90210	Beverly Hills	CA	34	73.3	99.6
30305	Atlanta	GA	33	62.7	98.7
90505	Torrance	CA	32	70.5	92.1
78746	Austin	TX	31	64.8	99.7
37027	Brentwood	TN	31	60.3	98.5
85255	Scottsdale	AZ	31	67.2	99.0
85260	Scottsdale	AZ	28	67.7	94.4
93101	Santa Barbara	CA	28	58.8	81.5
38138	Germantown	TN	25	55.9	95.8
89509	Reno	NV	25	61.1	90.4

States Ranked by Average Acquisition Score

Average Acquisition Score by State

A-Grade Concentration by State

State	A-Grade	Total	A-Grade %
CA	384	1065	36.1%
NY	95	365	26.0%
TX	68	381	17.8%
WA	32	100	32.0%
VA	27	129	20.9%
PA	22	351	6.3%
OR	22	110	20.0%
GA	21	341	6.2%
AZ	21	145	14.5%
FL	19	362	5.2%
NV	18	188	9.6%
DC	16	46	34.8%
NC	16	212	7.5%
MD	14	85	16.5%
MN	8	152	5.3%

ZIP Affluence Profile

ZIP-level affluence analysis from IRS SOI income data, correlated with med-spa market potential.

Average ZIP Affluence Score by State (Top 15)

State	ZIPs Scored	Avg Score	Affluence Score	Avg AGI	A-Grade ZIPs
DC	22	76.0	79.4	$166	10
MA	480	69.4	75.3	$143	186
NJ	545	69.4	73.5	$129	222
CT	262	69.2	73.7	$135	108
HI	58	66.3	62.5	$85	17
NH	228	65.5	72.4	$104	46
MD	403	64.4	71.2	$103	114
CA	1479	62.7	61.8	$127	476
RI	69	62.5	68.2	$91	15
FL	918	62.1	51.0	$114	241
DE	55	60.2	61.2	$94	12
AK	55	59.7	65.5	$80	3
CO	396	59.5	59.3	$93	106
WA	498	58.6	66.1	$103	105
NV	128	56.2	55.4	$116	25

Income vs. Med-Spa Score Correlation

Average ZIP Med-Spa Score by State

High-Income ZIP Penetration

A-Grade Affluent ZIPs

3,660

ZIPs scoring 80+ on affluence model

ZIPs with Prospects

622

A-grade ZIPs where we found med-spas

Market Penetration

17%

Coverage of top-affluence ZIP codes

Opportunity: Only 17% of A-grade affluent ZIPs have discoverable med-spa businesses. This represents 3038 underserved high-income markets.

So What — Pricing Thesis Validated: Prospects cluster in ZIPs with an average affluence score of 90/100. This validates the premium pricing thesis — target locations sit in communities with above-average discretionary income, supporting $300-500 per-visit ASPs for injectables and laser treatments.

Competitive Landscape

PE-backed aesthetics platforms and recent deal activity in the sector.

PE-Backed Aesthetics Platforms

Company	Industry	Location	PE Owner	Employees	Status
AesthetiCare	Healthcare Services - Aesthetics	Santa Monica, CA	PE-Backed (undisclosed)	100	Active
Epiphany Dermatology	Healthcare Services - Aesthetics	Austin, TX	Leonard Green & Partners	900	Active
Forefront Dermatology	Healthcare Services - Aesthetics	Manitowoc, WI	OMERS Private Equity	2,500	Active
Ideal Image	Healthcare Services - Aesthetics	Tampa, FL	L Catterton	2,000	Active
LaserAway	Healthcare Services - Aesthetics	Los Angeles, CA	L Catterton	1,500	Active
Schweiger Dermatology Group	Healthcare Services - Aesthetics	New York, NY	GI Partners	1,500	Active
Skin Laundry	Healthcare Services - Aesthetics	Santa Monica, CA	Venture/PE-Backed	200	Active
SkinSpirit	Healthcare Services - Aesthetics	Palo Alto, CA	Ares Management	800	Active
US Dermatology Partners	Healthcare Services - Aesthetics	Dallas, TX	Harvest Partners	1,200	Active
Westlake Dermatology	Healthcare Services - Aesthetics	Austin, TX	-	400	Active

Competitive context: 10 PE-backed platforms identified in aesthetics/med-spa sector. Roll-up activity signals strong institutional interest in the space.

Recent Deal Activity

Company	Deal Type	Date	EV	EV/EBITDA
SkinSpirit	Buyout	2021-06-01	-	-
Schweiger Dermatology Group	Growth Equity	2020-06-01	-	-
US Dermatology Partners	Buyout	2016-06-01	-	-
Epiphany Dermatology	Growth Equity	2019-06-01	-	-
Forefront Dermatology	Buyout	2018-06-01	-	-
LaserAway	Growth Equity	2020-06-01	-	-
Ideal Image	Buyout	2017-06-01	-	-
AesthetiCare	Growth Equity	2020-06-01	-	-
Skin Laundry	Growth Equity	2019-06-01	-	-

Market Consolidation Trends

Why Aesthetics is Attractive for PE Roll-Up

Fragmented market: The US aesthetics market is estimated at $20B+ with thousands of independent operators, creating ample buy-and-build opportunity
Recurring revenue: Med-spas benefit from membership models, repeat visit patterns, and consumable product revenue (Botox, fillers, skincare)
Demographic tailwinds: Growing demand across age cohorts, male demographics, and geographic markets driven by social media normalization
Operating leverage: Multi-unit platforms achieve procurement savings (15-25%), shared marketing, and provider network effects
Multiple arbitrage: Single-unit med-spas trade at 3-5x EBITDA; scaled platforms command 8-12x, creating immediate value on consolidation

Data Sources & Methodology

Acquisition Prospect Scoring Model

Each med-spa prospect receives a composite score (0-100) based on five weighted factors:

Zip Affluence

30%

Yelp Rating

25%

Review Volume

20%

Low Competition

15%

Price Tier

10%

Scores are converted to letter grades using standard thresholds:

Grade	Score Range	Interpretation
A	80-100	Top-tier acquisition target
B	65-79	Strong prospect
C	50-64	Moderate potential
D	35-49	Below-average prospect
F	0-34	Not recommended

ZIP Revenue Potential Score

Each US ZIP code is scored (0-100) for med-spa revenue potential using five IRS SOI-derived signals:

Affluence Density

30%

Discretionary Wealth

25%

Market Size

20%

Professional Density

15%

Wealth Concentration

10%

Data Freshness

Dataset	Source	Records	Last Updated
Med-Spa Prospects	Yelp Business Search API	4,489	2026-02-24T21:32:59.428231
ZIP Affluence Scores	IRS SOI ZIP Income Data (2021 tax year)	27,604	2026-02-24
PE Portfolio Companies	SEC EDGAR, Company Websites	-	-
Census ACS Income	US Census Bureau ACS 5-Year	-	-
IRS SOI ZIP Income (Stealth Wealth)	IRS SOI, tax years 2019-2021	331,168	2021
IRS SOI Migration (Migration Alpha)	IRS SOI, tax years 2018-2021	447,240	2021
CMS Medicare Utilization (Provider Density)	CMS Medicare Provider Utilization	21,260	-
IRS SOI Business Income (Biz Formation)	IRS SOI, tax years 2018-2021	110,398	2021
Opportunity Zones (OZ Overlay)	CDFI Fund / Treasury Dept	8,765	-
BLS CPI (Medical Pricing Power)	BLS Consumer Price Index, 2015-2025	1,536	2025

Coverage Statistics

Prospects Discovered

4,489

Unique med-spa locations from Yelp

ZIPs Covered

927

Unique ZIP codes with prospects

Total Consumer Reviews

214,975

Aggregate Yelp reviews analyzed

Whitespace Analysis

Grade-A affluent ZIPs with zero discovered med-spa prospects — greenfield acquisition opportunities.

Total A-Grade ZIPs

3,660

ZIPs scoring 80+ on affluence model

A-Grade w/ Prospects

622

Already have discoverable med-spas

Whitespace ZIPs

3,038

Greenfield opportunity zones

ZIP	State	Score	Avg AGI	Tax Returns	Affluence Score
2493	MA	99.8	$1K	5,220	99.9
6840	CT	99.7	$802	9,070	99.9
7078	NJ	99.7	$992	6,080	100.0
6880	CT	99.7	$616	12,840	99.8
60093	IL	99.7	$1K	9,530	99.5
94104	CA	99.7	$6K	920	99.5
6820	CT	99.6	$915	9,510	99.9
2481	MA	99.6	$963	7,170	99.8
60045	IL	99.6	$1K	10,140	99.7
2110	MA	99.5	$2K	2,240	99.9
6831	CT	99.5	$1K	7,330	99.0
60022	IL	99.5	$826	3,870	99.9
98039	WA	99.5	$2K	1,550	100.0
19035	PA	99.4	$1K	2,130	99.9
90077	CA	99.4	$845	3,930	99.7
60521	IL	99.4	$597	8,160	99.6
34228	FL	99.4	$875	3,720	100.0
63124	MO	99.4	$623	5,290	99.7
6878	CT	99.3	$960	3,790	99.6
63131	MO	99.3	$471	8,620	99.6
35223	AL	99.3	$600	5,490	99.6
63105	MO	99.2	$908	7,120	98.9
6870	CT	99.2	$890	3,330	99.8
60091	IL	99.2	$397	12,880	99.3
2459	MA	99.2	$465	8,640	99.5

Whitespace ZIPs by State (Top 15)

314

222

198

197

192

186

123

116

108

106

102

Opportunity: 3,038 high-affluence A-grade ZIPs have no discoverable med-spa businesses — these represent greenfield targets for de novo clinic launches or franchise expansion.

So What — Greenfield Quantified: 3,038 whitespace ZIPs means the roll-up doesn't depend solely on existing operator acquisitions. A blended strategy of buy (existing med-spas) + build (de novo in whitespace ZIPs) could accelerate portfolio growth while maintaining acquisition discipline on multiples.

Workforce Economics

BLS Occupational Employment & Wage Statistics for aesthetics-adjacent roles — labor cost trends that impact unit economics.

Occupation	2024	Growth
Cosmetologists	$43K	+0.0%
Dermatologists	$253K	+0.0%
Health Technicians	$56K	+0.0%
Healthcare Support	$49K	+0.0%
Massage Therapists	$63K	+0.0%
Nurse Practitioners	$132K	+0.0%
Physician Assistants	$137K	+0.0%
Registered Nurses	$98K	+0.0%

Annual Mean Wage by Occupation (2024)

Cosmetologists

43,460

Dermatologists

253,470

Health Technicians

56,370

Healthcare Support

48,760

Massage Therapists

63,430

Nurse Practitioners

132,000

Physician Assistants

136,900

Registered Nurses

98,430

Labor Cost Signal: Key mid-level providers — Nurse Practitioners (+0.0%) and Physician Assistants (+0.0%) — show significant wage growth, signaling rising talent competition that impacts med-spa unit economics.

Service Category Breakdown

Disaggregation of discovered prospects by Yelp business category — reveals service mix and niche positioning.

Category Distribution

medicalspa

3,315

skincare

2,094

laser_hair_removal

1,193

bodycontouring

540

cosmeticsurgeons

425

ivhydration

372

weightlosscenters

359

aestheticians

338

Other

2,793

medicalspa3,31529%

skincare2,09418%

laser_hair_removal1,19310%

bodycontouring5405%

cosmeticsurgeons4254%

ivhydration3723%

weightlosscenters3593%

aestheticians3383%

Other2,79324%

Category	Count	% Share	Avg Score	Avg Rating	Avg Reviews
medicalspa	3,315	29.0%	68.0	4.4	50
skincare	2,094	18.3%	71.5	4.5	64
laser_hair_removal	1,193	10.4%	70.1	4.3	71
bodycontouring	540	4.7%	67.9	4.5	50
cosmeticsurgeons	425	3.7%	70.6	4.3	58
ivhydration	372	3.3%	64.5	4.5	29
weightlosscenters	359	3.1%	63.2	4.5	21
aestheticians	338	3.0%	62.1	4.5	16
dermatology	320	2.8%	69.1	3.9	60
plasticsurgeons	251	2.2%	70.0	4.3	44
waxing	220	1.9%	68.0	4.6	42
spas	169	1.5%	72.9	4.3	81
acnetreatment	150	1.3%	69.9	4.5	71
massage	138	1.2%	69.9	4.3	66
massage_therapy	133	1.2%	67.6	4.6	30
permanentmakeup	124	1.1%	67.4	4.6	24
eyelashservice	122	1.1%	67.7	4.7	27
hairloss	101	0.9%	65.0	4.4	36
tattooremoval	96	0.8%	70.8	4.2	104
estheticians	76	0.7%	64.8	4.8	24

Insight: medicalspa is the dominant category with 3,315 prospects (29.0% share). Niche categories may represent differentiated positioning or underserved sub-segments worth investigating.

PE Platform Benchmarking

Financial benchmarks for PE-backed aesthetics platforms — revenue, margins, and leverage metrics.

Avg EBITDA Margin

15.1%

Across PE-backed platforms

Avg Revenue Growth

+20.7%

Year-over-year

Median Debt/EBITDA

Leverage benchmark

Company	PE Owner	Revenue	Rev Growth	EBITDA Margin	Employees	Debt/EBITDA	Confidence
Forefront Dermatology	OMERS Private Equity	$600.0M	+15.0%	14.0%	2,500	-	low
Ideal Image	L Catterton	$500.0M	+12.0%	15.0%	2,000	-	low
Schweiger Dermatology Group	GI Partners	$400.0M	+25.0%	15.0%	1,500	-	low
US Dermatology Partners	Harvest Partners	$350.0M	+18.0%	14.0%	1,200	-	low
LaserAway	L Catterton	$300.0M	+20.0%	17.0%	1,500	-	low
Epiphany Dermatology	Leonard Green & Partners	$250.0M	+25.0%	13.0%	900	-	low
SkinSpirit	Ares Management	$200.0M	+30.0%	18.0%	800	-	low

Revenue by Platform (Top 8)

Forefront Dermatology

$600.0M

Ideal Image

$500.0M

Schweiger Dermatology Group

$400.0M

US Dermatology Partners

$350.0M

LaserAway

$300.0M

Epiphany Dermatology

$250.0M

SkinSpirit

$200.0M

Data Confidence Note: Financial data for private PE-backed platforms is estimated from SEC filings, employee counts, and comparable transactions. A “low” confidence tag means the figure is modeled rather than disclosed — this is normal for private companies and does not indicate a data quality issue. Treat as directional benchmarks for deal structuring, not audited figures.

Review Velocity & Growth Signals

Demand momentum signals via review volume, competitive dynamics, and market positioning.

Top 25 by Review Volume (A/B Grade)

Name	City	State	Reviews	Rating	Score	Grade	Competitors
New Look Skin Center	Glendale	CA	3,131	4.2	81	Grade A	3
LA Beauty Skin Center	Glendale	CA	2,365	4.7	80	Grade B	2
New Look Skin Center	Encino	CA	2,100	4.0	80	Grade B	12
Prolase Laser & Aesthetics	Glendale	CA	1,625	4.6	82	Grade A	3
Misarang Beauty	Los Angeles	CA	1,524	4.8	74	Grade B	2
Liquid Beauty	Huntington Beach	CA	1,217	4.9	93	Grade A	1
Nakedmd	Newport Beach	CA	1,214	4.8	79	Grade B	46
Cienega Med Spa	West Hollywood	CA	1,203	4.6	85	Grade A	8
LA Beauty Skin Center	North Hollywood	CA	1,168	4.6	89	Grade A	2
Vivida Dermatology	Las Vegas	NV	1,168	4.5	77	Grade B	12
Amoderm Cosmetic & Wellness Medical Center	Irvine	CA	1,132	4.8	90	Grade A	3
Zavant Aesthetics	West Hollywood	CA	996	4.6	90	Grade A	2
7Q Spa Laser & Aesthetics	Glendale	CA	879	4.7	83	Grade A	3
The Skin Agency	Los Angeles	CA	837	4.5	88	Grade A	2
Spade Skin Care & More - Redondo Beach	Redondo Beach	CA	834	4.4	86	Grade A	10
LaserAway	Walnut Creek	CA	817	4.3	79	Grade B	18
Glow Aesthetic Center	Encino	CA	810	4.9	84	Grade A	12
Prolase Laser Clinic	Sherman Oaks	CA	767	4.7	87	Grade A	6
La Eve Skin	Los Angeles	CA	760	4.7	71	Grade B	2
Richards Cosmetic Surgery, Med Spa & Laser Center	Las Vegas	NV	730	4.7	69	Grade B	18
KUR Skin Lab	New York	NY	721	4.7	83	Grade A	15
SkinSpirit - Palo Alto	Palo Alto	CA	717	4.5	86	Grade A	14
Your Laser Skin Care	Los Angeles	CA	701	4.9	86	Grade A	8
milk + honey \| River Oaks	Houston	TX	698	4.4	82	Grade A	20
Cienega Med Spa - Santa Monica	Santa Monica	CA	694	4.7	86	Grade A	8

Review Volume Distribution

500+

200-499

198

100-199

313

50-99

406

<50

3,519

Low Competition Gems (A/B Grade, ≤3 Competitors)

Name	City	State	Score	Grade	Rating	Reviews	Competitors
Next Health	Los Angeles	CA	96	Grade A	4.8	239	1
SkinSpirit - Presidio Heights	San Francisco	CA	96	Grade A	4.7	230	2
Kenneth Bermudez, MD	San Francisco	CA	94	Grade A	4.7	107	2
Cheng Plastic Surgery	Saratoga	CA	94	Grade A	4.9	443	1
Cure	Malibu	CA	93	Grade A	4.6	117	1
ASAP IVs	Pleasanton	CA	93	Grade A	4.9	555	1
Liquid Beauty	Huntington Beach	CA	93	Grade A	4.9	1,217	1
FUTURE Vanity/Novelty	Oakland	CA	93	Grade A	4.8	231	1
Satori Laser - Upper East Side	New York	NY	92	Grade A	4.9	245	2
Marion Pernoux	San Francisco	CA	92	Grade A	4.9	431	2
Blackhawk Plastic Surgery & MedSpa	Danville	CA	92	Grade A	4.3	472	2
Mara's Med Spa-Uptown	Dallas	TX	92	Grade A	4.7	464	1
Aesthetic MdR	Marina Del Rey	CA	92	Grade A	4.7	241	1
RejuvaYou Medical	South Pasadena	CA	92	Grade A	4.7	363	1
Idan Med Spa	San Francisco	CA	92	Grade A	4.9	179	2

Demand Signals: 25 A/B-grade prospects have 200+ reviews, indicating established consumer demand and brand recognition. 15 prospects are A/B-grade with 3 or fewer competitors in their ZIP — prime bolt-on acquisition targets with limited competitive pressure.

Deal Model — Unit Economics

Estimated portfolio economics for all A-grade acquisition targets using industry benchmark revenue and margins by Yelp price tier.

Total A-Grade Locations

789

Across all price tiers

Est. Portfolio Revenue

$652.4M

Based on industry benchmarks

Est. Portfolio EBITDA

$125.9M

Weighted avg margin: 19.3%

Revenue Estimates by Price Tier

Price Tier	Locations	Avg Revenue	EBITDA Margin	Avg EBITDA	Entry Multiple	Total Revenue	Total EBITDA
$$	398	$700K	18%	$126K	3.5x	$278.6M	$50.1M
Unknown	195	$600K	15%	$90K	3.5x	$117.0M	$17.6M
$$$	157	$1.2M	22%	$264K	4.0x	$188.4M	$41.4M
$$$$	33	$2.0M	25%	$500K	4.5x	$66.0M	$16.5M
$	6	$400K	12%	$48K	3.0x	$2.4M	$288K
Total	789	-	19%	-	-	$652.4M	$125.9M

A-Grade Locations by Price Tier

398

Unknown

195

$$$

157

$$$$

$$39850%

Unknown19525%

$$$15720%

$$$$334%

$61%

Per-Location P&L Waterfall (Portfolio Average)

$827K

Revenue

$331K

COGS (40%)

$496K

Gross Profit

$265K

SG&A (32%)

$232K

EBITDA

Methodology: Revenue and margin estimates are based on AmSpa State of the Industry Report, IBISWorld Medspa Industry Analysis, and PE deal comps benchmarks. Actual financials will vary by location — these are planning estimates.

Deal Model — Capital Requirements

Total capital needed to acquire all A-grade targets, including financing structure, transaction costs, and working capital reserves.

Acquisition Cost by Price Tier

Price Tier	Locations	Avg EBITDA	Entry Multiple	Total Acquisition Cost
$$	398	$126K	3.5x	$175.5M
Unknown	195	$90K	3.5x	$61.4M
$$$	157	$264K	4.0x	$165.8M
$$$$	33	$500K	4.5x	$74.2M
$	6	$48K	3.0x	$864K
Total	789	-	-	$477.8M

Capital Stack

Total Acquisition Cost

$477.8M

789 locations × avg EBITDA × entry multiple

Equity Check (40%)

$191.1M

Sponsor equity contribution

Senior Debt (60%)

$286.7M

Leverage: 2.3x Debt/EBITDA

Total Capital Required

$267.2M

Equity + transaction costs + working capital

Component	Amount
Equity Contribution (40%)	$191.1M
Senior Debt (60%)	$286.7M
Transaction Costs (5%)	$23.9M
Working Capital (3mo SG&A)	$52.2M
Total Capital Required	$267.2M

Capital Stack Breakdown

Equity $191.1M

Senior Debt $286.7M

Transaction Costs $23.9M

Working Capital $52.2M

Capital Stack Components

Equity

191,139,600

Senior Debt

286,709,400

Transaction Costs

23,892,450

Working Capital

52,192,000

Leverage Check: At 2.3x Debt/EBITDA, the portfolio is within the typical 4.0x leverage comfort zone for PE-backed healthcare roll-ups.

Deal Model — Returns Analysis

Projected returns across three scenarios with varying exit multiples, margin improvement, and hold periods.

Conservative

Entry EV $477.8M

Exit Multiple 7x

EBITDA Improvement 3%/yr

Hold Period 5 years

Exit EV $1,021.9M

Gross MOIC 2.1x

Net IRR 16.4%

Base Case

Entry EV $477.8M

Exit Multiple 10x

EBITDA Improvement 5%/yr

Hold Period 5 years

Exit EV $1,607.3M

Gross MOIC 3.4x

Net IRR 27.5%

Aggressive

Entry EV $477.8M

Exit Multiple 12x

EBITDA Improvement 7%/yr

Hold Period 4 years

Exit EV $1,980.9M

Gross MOIC 4.2x

Net IRR 42.7%

Scenario Comparison

Scenario	Entry EV	Exit Multiple	EBITDA Improvement	Hold Period	Exit EV	Gross MOIC	Net IRR
Conservative	$477.8M	7x	3%/yr	5 yrs	$1,021.9M	2.1x	16.4%
Base Case	$477.8M	10x	5%/yr	5 yrs	$1,607.3M	3.4x	27.5%
Aggressive	$477.8M	12x	7%/yr	4 yrs	$1,980.9M	4.2x	42.7%

Synergy Upside (Not Modeled): Procurement savings (15-25% on injectables/consumables), shared marketing infrastructure, centralized scheduling & billing technology platform, and provider network effects could add 300-500bps of additional margin improvement beyond baseline projections.

Phased Rollout Strategy

Recommended Acquisition Cadence

Year 1 — Platform Build (Top 100): Acquire highest-scoring A-grade targets in top 5 states. Establish shared services infrastructure, negotiate vendor contracts, deploy tech platform.
Year 2 — Scale (+200): Expand to 300 total locations. Leverage platform economics for procurement savings. Begin cross-selling across locations.
Years 3-5 — Full Portfolio: Complete remaining ~489 acquisitions. Drive margin improvement through operational integration. Prepare for exit.

Base Case Exit Value by State ($M)

782

194

138

Other

159

CA782.249%

NY193.512%

TX138.59%

WA65.24%

VA553%

PA44.83%

OR44.83%

GA42.83%

AZ42.83%

FL38.72%

Other158.910%

Stealth Wealth Signal

No stealth wealth ZIPs found matching criteria. IRS SOI data is ingested, but no ZIPs have >25% non-wage income AND a medspa score below 70. This means existing medspa coverage already captures the affluent non-wage-income ZIPs — a positive sign for market efficiency. Adjust thresholds or add more ZIP-level data to expand this analysis.

Migration Alpha

IRS SOI migration data not yet ingested. Run POST /api/v1/irs-soi/migration/ingest to enable migration alpha analysis. This uses county-to-county wealth flows as a 2-3 year leading indicator of medspa demand.

Medical Provider Density Signal

Limited provider data available — only 1 provider-ZIP pairs found. CMS Medicare utilization data may be partially ingested or filtered too aggressively. Run a full CMS ingestion with POST /api/v1/cms/ingest/medicare-utilization to expand coverage. The provider density signal requires 50+ ZIP pairs for meaningful analysis.

Real Estate Appreciation Alpha

Real estate data not yet ingested. Run POST /api/v1/realestate/redfin/ingest (preferred) or POST /api/v1/realestate/fhfa/ingest (fallback) to enable real estate appreciation alpha. This identifies appreciating ZIPs with low medspa penetration — timing signals for market entry.

Deposit Wealth Concentration

FDIC deposit data not yet ingested. Run POST /api/v1/fdic/deposits/ingest to enable deposit wealth analysis. This identifies ZIPs with high bank deposits per capita but low medspa penetration — liquid wealth signals.

Business Formation Velocity

IRS SOI business income data not yet ingested. Run POST /api/v1/irs-soi/business-income/ingest to enable business formation analysis. This identifies ZIPs with high entrepreneurial density (Schedule C, partnerships, S-corps) where affluent business owners would be natural medspa clientele.

Opportunity Zone Overlay

Total OZ Tracts

8,765

States with OZs

OZ Tracts in Medspa States

Tax-Advantaged States

>5 A-grade + >50 OZ tracts

Opportunity Zones offer 10-year capital gains tax deferral for investments in designated Census tracts. States with high OZ density AND high A-grade medspa counts represent tax-advantaged roll-up targets — PE investors can defer gains while building platform value.

Top 15 States by OZ Tract Count

879

863

628

514

427

327

320

300

288

260

252

213

176

169

168

OZ Designation Type

Low-Income Tracts

8,765

Contiguous Tracts

Low-Income Tracts8,765100%

Contiguous Tracts00%

Top States: OZ Tracts vs Medspa Prospects

    StateOZ TractsLow-IncomeMedspa ProspectsA-GradeOZ/Prospect Ratio

    CA8798791,0653840.8
PR86386300-
TX628628381681.6
NY514514365951.4
FL427427362191.2
IL32732710327.0
OH32032000-
PA300300351220.8
MI28828800-
GA260260341210.8
NC252252212161.2
VA213213129271.6
TN17617633160.5
NJ1691692207.7
AZ168168145211.2
MO16116100-
AL15815800-
IN15615600-
LA15015000-
MD14914985141.8
KY14414400-
WA139139100321.4
MA1381389201.5
SC13513510135.0
MN12812815280.8

State	OZ Tracts	Low-Income	Medspa Prospects	A-Grade	OZ/Prospect Ratio
CA	879	879	1,065	384	0.8
PR	863	863	0	0	-
TX	628	628	381	68	1.6
NY	514	514	365	95	1.4
FL	427	427	362	19	1.2
IL	327	327	1	0	327.0
OH	320	320	0	0	-
PA	300	300	351	22	0.8
MI	288	288	0	0	-
GA	260	260	341	21	0.8
NC	252	252	212	16	1.2
VA	213	213	129	27	1.6
TN	176	176	331	6	0.5
NJ	169	169	22	0	7.7
AZ	168	168	145	21	1.2
MO	161	161	0	0	-
AL	158	158	0	0	-
IN	156	156	0	0	-
LA	150	150	0	0	-
MD	149	149	85	14	1.8
KY	144	144	0	0	-
WA	139	139	100	32	1.4
MA	138	138	92	0	1.5
SC	135	135	1	0	135.0
MN	128	128	152	8	0.8

15 tax-advantaged states identified with both significant OZ density and A-grade medspa targets. Qualified Opportunity Fund investments in these zones can defer and reduce capital gains taxes — a powerful PE incentive for location selection.

Demographic Demand Model

Educational attainment data not yet ingested. Run POST /api/v1/site-intel/educational-attainment/ingest to enable demographic demand modeling. Bachelor's+ education density is the strongest proxy for medspa demand — correlated with income, health awareness, and aesthetics spending.

PE Competitive Heat Map

PE-Backed Platforms

Avg EV/EBITDA

0.0x

Total Deal Value

Most Active Buyer

L Catterton

PE competitive intelligence maps active buyers in the aesthetics space. Understanding deal multiples, preferred geographies, and deal types (LBO vs add-on vs growth) helps position acquisitions competitively and identifies white-space markets where PE capital hasn't yet concentrated.

PE Aesthetics Deals by State

Deal Type Breakdown

Buyout

Growth Equity

Unknown

Buyout440%

Growth Equity550%

Unknown110%

Recent Aesthetics PE Deals

    CompanyBuyerTypeEVEV/EBITDADateState

    SkinSpiritAres ManagementBuyout---CA
Schweiger Dermatology GroupGI PartnersGrowth Equity---NY
US Dermatology PartnersHarvest PartnersBuyout---TX
Epiphany DermatologyLeonard Green & PartnersGrowth Equity---TX
Forefront DermatologyOMERS Private EquityBuyout---WI
LaserAwayL CattertonGrowth Equity---CA
Ideal ImageL CattertonBuyout---FL
AesthetiCareUndisclosed PEGrowth Equity---CA
Skin LaundryMultiple investorsGrowth Equity---CA
Westlake DermatologyUnknownUnknown---TX

Company	Buyer	Type	EV	EV/EBITDA	Date	State
SkinSpirit	Ares Management	Buyout	-	-	-	CA
Schweiger Dermatology Group	GI Partners	Growth Equity	-	-	-	NY
US Dermatology Partners	Harvest Partners	Buyout	-	-	-	TX
Epiphany Dermatology	Leonard Green & Partners	Growth Equity	-	-	-	TX
Forefront Dermatology	OMERS Private Equity	Buyout	-	-	-	WI
LaserAway	L Catterton	Growth Equity	-	-	-	CA
Ideal Image	L Catterton	Buyout	-	-	-	FL
AesthetiCare	Undisclosed PE	Growth Equity	-	-	-	CA
Skin Laundry	Multiple investors	Growth Equity	-	-	-	CA
Westlake Dermatology	Unknown	Unknown	-	-	-	TX

10 aesthetics deals tracked with an average EV/EBITDA of 0.0x. Markets with low PE activity but high medspa density present first-mover acquisition opportunities before competitive bidding intensifies.

Construction Momentum Signal

HUD building permit data not yet ingested. Run POST /api/v1/realestate/hud-permits/ingest to enable construction momentum analysis. Rising building permits are a 1-2 year leading indicator of population growth and future medspa demand.

Medical CPI Pricing Power

BLS CPI data not yet ingested. Run POST /api/v1/bls/dataset/ingest with medical care CPI series (CUSR0000SAM, CUSR0000SA0) to enable pricing power analysis. When medical CPI outpaces general CPI, medspa operators have pricing power — they can raise prices faster than general inflation.

Talent Pipeline Pressure

BLS JOLTS data not yet ingested. Run POST /api/v1/bls/dataset/ingest with healthcare JOLTS series (JTU6200000000000JOL, JTU6200000000000HIR) to enable talent pipeline analysis. The openings-to-hires ratio measures healthcare talent scarcity — a higher ratio means harder hiring, making well-staffed platforms more valuable.

Sensitivity Analysis

IRR Sensitivity — Exit Multiple vs Hold Period

Net IRR	300.0%	400.0%	500.0%	600.0%	700.0%
	Hold Years	Hold Years	Hold Years	Hold Years	Hold Years
600.0% Exit Multiple	22.3%	17.7%	15.1%	13.3%	12.1%
700.0% Exit Multiple	28.8%	22.4%	18.7%	16.3%	14.6%
800.0% Exit Multiple	34.6%	26.5%	21.9%	18.9%	16.8%
1000.0% Exit Multiple	45.0%	33.8%	27.5%	23.4%	20.6%
1200.0% Exit Multiple	54.1%	40.0%	32.2%	27.2%	23.8%
1400.0% Exit Multiple	62.3%	45.5%	36.3%	30.5%	26.5%

MOIC Sensitivity — Margin Improvement vs Exit Multiple

Gross MOIC	6.00x	8.00x	10.00x	12.00x	14.00x
	Exit Multiple	Exit Multiple	Exit Multiple	Exit Multiple	Exit Multiple
0.02x Margin Impr.	1.75x	2.33x	2.91x	3.49x	4.07x
0.03x Margin Impr.	1.83x	2.44x	3.06x	3.67x	4.28x
0.04x Margin Impr.	1.92x	2.57x	3.21x	3.85x	4.49x
0.05x Margin Impr.	2.02x	2.69x	3.36x	4.04x	4.71x
0.06x Margin Impr.	2.12x	2.82x	3.53x	4.23x	4.94x
0.08x Margin Impr.	2.32x	3.10x	3.87x	4.65x	5.42x

What Moves IRR Most? (Tornado Analysis)

Single-Variable IRR Sensitivity (±20%)

Hold Years

Entry Multiple

Exit Multiple

Margin Improvement

Organic Growth

Base case highlighted. Each cell holds all other variables constant. The tornado chart shows which single variable swings IRR the most — focus diligence on the top drivers.

J-Curve & Deployment Cash Flow

Capital Deployed

$39.3M

Break-Even Month

N/A

Deployment Timeline

18 months

Cohorts

J-Curve: Capital Deployed vs Cumulative Returns

Deployment Cohort Schedule

Phase	Locations	Start	Acq Cost	Cumulative	Milestones
Phase 1	15	M0	$9.1M	$9.8M	Close anchor locations; Hire COO
Phase 2	25	M6	$15.1M	$26.2M	Consolidate SG&A functions; Hire VP Ops
Phase 3	20	M12	$12.1M	$39.3M	Reach platform scale; Prepare for exit or recapitalization

Deployment analysis. Break-even not reached within the modeled period — returns build over a longer hold. Earlier cohorts generate compounding returns that fund later acquisitions.

Cohort Economics

Unit Economics by State (Top 10)

State	Count	Total Rev	Margin	Implied IRR
CA	384	$313.5M	19.2%	27.5%
NY	95	$76.8M	19.1%	27.7%
TX	68	$55.3M	19.2%	27.8%
WA	32	$27.2M	19.6%	27.2%
VA	27	$21.5M	18.9%	28.0%
PA	22	$16.9M	18.6%	28.3%
OR	22	$19.1M	19.8%	27.0%
GA	21	$16.9M	19.1%	28.1%
AZ	21	$20.1M	20.6%	26.6%
FL	19	$16.2M	19.6%	27.3%

Unit Economics by Price Tier

Tier	Count	Avg Revenue	Margin	Entry Multiple	Implied IRR
$$	398	$700,000	18.0%	3.5x	29.5%
Unknown	195	$600,000	15.0%	3.5x	29.5%
$$$	157	$1,200,000	22.0%	4.0x	26.1%
$$$$	33	$2,000,000	25.0%	4.5x	23.2%
$	6	$400,000	12.0%	3.0x	33.6%

Margin vs Implied IRR by Price Tier

Sweet-spot cohorts. The $ price tier delivers the highest implied IRR (33.6%). PA is the top state by returns (28.3% IRR). Focus initial deployment on the highest-IRR cohorts to maximize early returns.

Portfolio Construction

HHI Index

2,652

Concentration

Concentrated

States with Targets

Total A-Grade

789

Geographic Diversification (Top 10 States)

State	Targets	Share	Cumulative
CA	384	48.7%	48.7%
NY	95	12.0%	60.7%
TX	68	8.6%	69.3%
WA	32	4.1%	73.4%
VA	27	3.4%	76.8%
PA	22	2.8%	79.6%
OR	22	2.8%	82.4%
GA	21	2.7%	85.0%
AZ	21	2.7%	87.7%
FL	19	2.4%	90.1%

HHI = 2,652 (Concentrated). High geographic concentration — diversify across additional states before deploying full capital.

Aesthetics Roll-Up Thesis (National)

Contents

CEO Overview — Investment Verdict

Top Risks

Executive Summary

Investment Thesis: Aesthetics Roll-Up

Market Map

Top Acquisition Targets

Market Concentration Analysis

Top ZIPs by Prospect Density

States Ranked by Average Acquisition Score

A-Grade Concentration by State

ZIP Affluence Profile

Average ZIP Affluence Score by State (Top 15)

Income vs. Med-Spa Score Correlation

High-Income ZIP Penetration

Competitive Landscape

PE-Backed Aesthetics Platforms

Recent Deal Activity

Market Consolidation Trends

Why Aesthetics is Attractive for PE Roll-Up

Data Sources & Methodology

Acquisition Prospect Scoring Model

ZIP Revenue Potential Score

Data Freshness

Coverage Statistics

Whitespace Analysis

Workforce Economics

Service Category Breakdown

PE Platform Benchmarking

Review Velocity & Growth Signals

Top 25 by Review Volume (A/B Grade)

Low Competition Gems (A/B Grade, ≤3 Competitors)

Deal Model — Unit Economics

Revenue Estimates by Price Tier

Per-Location P&L Waterfall (Portfolio Average)

Deal Model — Capital Requirements

Acquisition Cost by Price Tier

Capital Stack

Capital Stack Breakdown

Deal Model — Returns Analysis

Scenario Comparison

Phased Rollout Strategy

Recommended Acquisition Cadence

Stealth Wealth Signal

Migration Alpha

Medical Provider Density Signal

Real Estate Appreciation Alpha

Deposit Wealth Concentration

Business Formation Velocity

Opportunity Zone Overlay

Top States: OZ Tracts vs Medspa Prospects

Demographic Demand Model

PE Competitive Heat Map

Recent Aesthetics PE Deals

Construction Momentum Signal

Medical CPI Pricing Power

Talent Pipeline Pressure

Sensitivity Analysis

IRR Sensitivity — Exit Multiple vs Hold Period

MOIC Sensitivity — Margin Improvement vs Exit Multiple

What Moves IRR Most? (Tornado Analysis)

J-Curve &amp; Deployment Cash Flow

Deployment Cohort Schedule

Cohort Economics

Unit Economics by State (Top 10)

Unit Economics by Price Tier

Portfolio Construction

Geographic Diversification (Top 10 States)

Data Quality Notes & Methodology

J-Curve & Deployment Cash Flow