So Navan is the latest B2B leader to file to IPO, and it should be an interesting one to watch. The numbers are strong, but not Figma strong. How will the markets see it? The margins are strong, but it’s not pure software. Will the markets care? And it’s an interesting proxy for $1B+ ARR Ramp and $700m+ ARR Brex. In theory, they should trade at roughly similar margins.
The summary:
- $700,000,000 ARR (just shy of it)
- 30% growth — very strong, but not Figma strong
- 110% NRR, sort of — strong, but not Figma strong
- Not profitable yet, -$62M LTM loss
A very, very, very good one. But where will it trade? And if it doesn’t trade all that high, what does it say about so many start-ups that are good, but not quite as strong as Navan?
5 Interesting Learnings:
#1.The 110% NDR + 71% Gross Margin Combo: Very Strong For Fintech-SaaS. But Not Pure B2B
Navan is a software + payments hybrid like its peers, and it’s worked hard to get its gross margins up to 68%. It also has 110% NRR … but only for customers its had for a year or longer. These are strong metrics for a fintech, but not quite pure B2B/SaaS best of breed.
#2. The 30% Growth Rate at $700M ARR Is Strong, But Not Quite Rule of 40 or Figma Strong
We’ll all love to be growing at Navan’s rate. But is it strong enough to trade at 10x ARR or more? Perhaps not. We will see. And it hasn’t hit profitability yet, meaning it’s not “efficient” growth yet, either.
Of some of its recent peer IPOs, it’s growing a bit slower and isn’t profitable:
Still a great one, but it will test the public markets. Netskope, while a security leader with stronger NRR and margins, could be a comp. It should trade lower than Netskope’s $8B market cap.
#3. The Customer Concentration Sweet Spot Is 10,000+ Customers Generating $61K Average Revenue Per Customer
Navan doesn’t focus on the smallest of customers, at least not unless they scale. It has over 10,000 customers generating $613M in trailing 12-month revenue, which equals roughly $61,300 in average revenue per customer.
This customer profile is a large enough customer base to avoid concentration risk, high enough ACV to justify strong sales and success motions. economics).
At $61K average revenue per customer, Navan can afford robust customer success, dedicated account management, and premium support while maintaining healthy unit economics. The usage-based model means customer growth directly translates to revenue growth without the ceiling of fixed subscriptions.
#4. AI Handles 50% of Support and Customer Interactions
Not a surprise in 2025, but useful to see this called out. The 11-point gross margin improvement (60% to 71%) came in part from AI reducing human support costs while maintaining service quality.
#5. The Global Revenue Mix (41% International) Impressive for Fintech + SaaS
Revenue generated from customers and suppliers outside the United States was $221M (41% of revenue) in fiscal 2025 versus $184.8M (46% of revenue) in fiscal 2024.
While international revenue percentage dropped slightly, the absolute dollars grew from $185M to $221M—a 19% increase. This global footprint at scale is incredibly valuable for expansion and defensibility.
International expansion in travel and expense management is notoriously difficult due to local payment rails, compliance requirements, and supplier relationships. Navan cracked this code at scale, giving them massive competitive moats.
If you’re building global B2B software, the international revenue mix shouldn’t be an afterthought—it should be a core part of your competitive differentiation. But don’t expand internationally until you’ve proven strong unit economics domestically.
A few other interesting learnings:
#6. Usage-Based Revenue Model: 90% of Revenue, 7% Consistent Usage Yield
90% of revenue comes from usage-based fees with a stable 7% take rate across all periods measured. Yes, Navan is a SaaS platform. But it’s revenue isn’t SaaS.
#7. They Built Their Own TMC Infrastructure (Travel Management Company)
Unlike competitors who partner with third-parties, Navan operates as its own TMC with direct supplier relationships. This explains their higher gross margins compared to traditional expense companies. They’re not just software—they’re a vertically integrated travel infrastructure play that happens to have great software on top.
Competitive Context: How Navan Stacks Up in Spend Management
Here’s how Navan’s metrics compare to direct competitors in the corporate spend management space:
Key Insights:
- Navan sits in the middle tier by scale but appears to trail Brex and Ramp in growth at scale
- Ramp leads in growth velocity with 110% at $1B scale, but remains private with aggressive growth investment
- Brex shows steady enterprise momentum at 50% growth at similar ARR, positioning for eventual IPO
- Expensify represents the mature public comp with slower growth but profitable operations
