H1 2026 Music Finance Index

01Introduction

Duetti and Billboard created the Music Finance Index as an industry-first, recurring benchmark, focused on current views and perceptions on music catalog valuations, rooted in the perspectives of the people doing the work on the ground - managers, lawyers, artists, and the teams that support them. The Index is intentionally centered on the perceptions of music industry stakeholders, rather than buyout funds and financial institutions that can be a few steps removed from the “action” in the space. Drawing on a curated panel of industry experts and insiders, it tracks how opinions of catalog multiples - defined as the price paid for a catalog relative to its trailing 12-month net revenue - vary across key deal dimensions, including rights type, catalog age, genre, and geography.

This first edition is not intended to reduce valuation to a single number, but to create a consistent lens for tracking how these perceptions evolve, why they may be shifting, and how expectations shift over time. A revenue multiple is a useful shorthand, but it is inherently incomplete: actual prices reflect a wide set of interacting factors such as catalog composition and durability, concentration risk, regional nuances, age, and growth trajectory.

The Index’s goal is to increase transparency in a historically opaque market and share insights and perspectives which we hope will empower music creators to make the best financial and catalog management decisions for themselves. This is aligned with Duetti’s long-term mission of empowering music creators to have better control over their careers.

Lior Tibon, CEO & Co-Founder, Duetti

02Valuations - and Disagreement - Rise With Age

Catalog age is the strongest divider in today’s valuation landscape. This is widely recognized by industry stakeholders; for instance, younger catalogs are typically earlier in their “decay curve,” and so a catalog that generates $1M today can, and often will, earn as little as half that in a few years. Therefore, while the multiple expectations on younger catalogs may seem low when compared to older catalogs, under certain scenarios it may end up being a better financial decision to sell versus waiting a few years and taking the risk of approaching the market with a lower base. This is because younger catalogs usually exhibit a much higher degree of volatility, which can add significant risk to a deal. Our industry panel perceives age as a key factor in driving headline multiples upward. Their opinion is that Masters move from a base (lower end of the valuation range) of 3.5x (2–5 years) to 5.7x (5–10 years) to 5.8x and higher (10+ years). Their opinion on Publishing follows a slightly steeper slope, rising from a base of 3.2x to 6.1x to 8.7x. Importantly, our panel shows that there is a wide range of potential perceived multiples at each band - showing that age is only one factor in determining valuation outcomes (other critical factors being genre, regions, historical earnings volatility, and many other qualitative and quantitative considerations).

Interestingly, older catalogs also exhibit a higher degree of variability in terms of perceptions of their value. The spread widens meaningfully as catalogs age, demonstrating that “older” is not a single category. In the 2–5 year band, the perceived spread between the bottom and the top of the range is relatively narrow (Masters 6x spread; Publishing 6.6x spread). The 5–10 year band remains similarly tight (Masters 6.8x spread; Publishing 7.8x spread). The biggest divergence in perceptions shows up in 10+ years, where the spread expands substantially (Masters 13x spread; Publishing 11.2x spread). In practical terms, the oldest band contains the widest range of perceived outcomes. At this stage, there are certain catalogs which are clearly perceived as “winners” and merit a significant premium, while others are not able to keep up - either due to a deficit in notoriety over a decade, or as a result of administrative complexities and other logistical hurdles.

Finally, the opinion gap in valuations for masters versus publishing rights becomes more pronounced with age. In newer catalogs, Publishing and Masters are perceived by our panel as to trade at a similar range. After 5 years, Publishing seems to pull ahead: +1.4x for the 5-10 year band and +1.1x for the 10+ year band (at the higher end of the range). Older publishing catalogs have more data and a better established track record in terms of their ability to get monetized via ancillary and “add on” usage - such as synchronization rights in TV, film or video games - leading to a premium valuation beyond the “steady state” of royalties via streaming services.

03Cautious Optimism for 2026 replaces a somewhat soft second half of 2025

Nearly half of our panel respondents perceived multiples to stay about the same over the past six months (47%), but the balance tilted slightly negative: 30% reported multiples decreased slightly, compared with 24% who saw an increase (7% significantly, 17% slightly). Netting “increase” minus “decrease,” that puts the prior period at -7%, which is a signal of mild softening. Notably, none of the respondents reported multiples decreasing significantly.

Looking forward into H1 2026, the tone changes - though it’s still modest. For the next six months, 42% expect multiples to increase (3% significantly, 39% slightly), versus 23% expecting a decline (23% decreased slightly, 0% significantly). Another 35% expect multiples to stay about the same. That produces a +19% net positive reading, a meaningful swing from the prior period. Importantly, this is subtle optimism: the dominant expectation is slight improvement, not a sharp step-up.