Hellman & Friedman — Data-Driven Investor Profile | Investment Thesis, Track Record & How to Pitch

Executive Summary

Hellman & Friedman executive summary: a concise, data-driven overview of Hellman & Friedman, the private equity buyout firm, covering firm snapshot, sector focus, deal size, and track record to help entrepreneurs assess fund fit.

Core investment thesis and sector focus

• Invest behind category-leading, defensible platforms with recurring revenue, strong unit economics, and clear paths to durable cash flow growth (H&F website).
• Concentrated expertise in software/SaaS, financial services and insurance, healthcare, business services, and consumer/information services; active in complex take-privates (H&F website; WSJ/Bloomberg deal reporting).
• Value creation levers: organic growth, pricing and go-to-market, product and digital acceleration, buy-and-build M&A, and talent/governance upgrades (H&F website).
• Long-term, high-conviction ownership with low deal volume relative to fund size; collaborative work with management teams (H&F website; Bloomberg).

Typical deal size and stage

• Equity checks typically $500 million to $5 billion+; enterprise values often $1–$50+ billion, with majority/control positions preferred (press releases; Bloomberg/WSJ).
• Stage: late-stage, market-leading or scaled growth businesses; selective minority growth investments when influence is meaningful (H&F website).
• Holding periods commonly 4–7 years; frequent use of buy-and-build to compound growth (PitchBook/Preqin strategy notes).

Headline track record metrics and sources

• Firm-level performance disclosure is limited; best public proxies from Preqin, PitchBook, and select LP reports indicate mature H&F flagship funds have delivered approximately 18–25% net IRR, 1.8x–2.5x TVPI, and 0.8x–1.8x DPI (estimates; Preqin and PitchBook snapshots 2023–2024).
• Recent flagship raise reportedly exceeded $20 billion in 2024; performance not yet available (H&F press materials; Bloomberg, 2024).
• Selected high-profile transactions underscore scale and sector focus, e.g., Zendesk take-private announced at approximately $10.2 billion in 2022 (WSJ/Bloomberg, June 2022).
• Instruction: If exact fund-level IRR/TVPI/DPI are required, use the most reliable proxies available (e.g., Preqin/PitchBook fund cards and public LP performance reports) and clearly label them as estimates.

Entrepreneur-facing assessment: fit indicators

• You seek a control partner for large-scale growth and buy-and-build in software, financial services/insurance, healthcare, or business services.
• You value a collaborative, governance-forward owner with resources for product, pricing, and go-to-market acceleration, plus M&A firepower.
• You prefer a sponsor that does not charge portfolio companies monitoring/transaction fees and has experience executing complex take-privates.

Entrepreneur-facing assessment: potential mismatches

• Early-stage or venture-scale businesses with sub-scale revenue or heavy cash burn seeking minority-only capital.
• Founders unwilling to share or cede control or adopt institutional governance and rigorous KPI reporting.
• Capital-intensive turnarounds, commodity-driven cyclicals, or sectors outside H&F’s core focus where the firm has limited edge.

Next steps

Founders should contact H&F’s relevant sector team or business development lead and prepare a succinct 3–5 page overview, historical financials and cohort metrics, go-to-market pipeline, and an M&A roadmap. Expect focused diligence on unit economics, retention/expansion cohorts, pricing, and governance readiness.

Firm Overview and Investment Philosophy

Hellman & Friedman (H&F) is a U.S. private equity firm founded in 1984 that emphasizes a disciplined investment philosophy, concentrated portfolios, and hands-on value creation. Its private equity strategy focuses on partnering with market-leading companies to drive value creation through buy-and-build, digital enablement, and operational excellence.

News context: Portfolio governance is central to H&F’s investment philosophy. Recent executive transitions at Edelman Financial Engines, an H&F portfolio company, illustrate sponsor-board coordination on succession and strategy.

This development underscores H&F’s pattern of active board involvement and alignment with management teams to sustain value creation through cycles.

• Headquarters: San Francisco; global offices in New York and London
• Ownership and governance: privately held partnership, majority employee-owned; Investment Committee composed of long-tenured partners; H&F is typically the largest investor in its own funds [SEC Form ADV; H&F Firm Overview].
• Leadership succession: founded by Warren Hellman and Tully Friedman (1984); later-generation leadership includes Philip Hammarskjold (Executive Chairman), Patrick Healy (CEO), and David Tunnell (CIO) [Company biographies].

• Sectors of focus: software and tech-enabled services, financial services, healthcare, consumer/retail, and other business services [H&F Approach].
• Value-creation playbook: buy-and-build, product and digital enablement, commercial acceleration, and margin improvement; frequent use of platform M&A (e.g., Kronos–Ultimate merger to form UKG) [Industry press, company releases].

Selected H&F Funds (cadence and scale)

Organizational Structure, Ownership, and Governance

H&F operates as a privately held partnership with majority employee ownership, overseen by an Investment Committee of senior partners. The firm’s succession from founders Warren Hellman and Tully Friedman to leaders Philip Hammarskjold (Executive Chairman), Patrick Healy (CEO), and David Tunnell (CIO) reflects deliberate, multi-decade governance. Alignment is reinforced by substantial GP commitments and the stated policy of not charging portfolio companies transaction or monitoring fees, which removes common frictions around cash leakage and incentives.

Investment Philosophy and Value Creation

H&F’s private equity strategy is to concentrate capital in market-leading, cash-generative platforms where secular growth, pricing power, and mission-critical software or services enable compounding. The firm emphasizes partnership with management, long average holds (~6–7 years; portfolio-weighted durations reported around 76 months), and board-driven value creation versus a heavy internal ops model [PitchBook; industry press]. Add-ons are frequent, with programmatic M&A used to expand product breadth and distribution; leverage is typically prudent for large-cap sponsors (often mid-to-high single-digit EBITDA turns depending on sector and cash flow resilience) based on public financing disclosures and ratings reports.

Case examples include software and financial services platforms where H&F has driven scale via mergers and operational integration (e.g., Kronos–Ultimate to form UKG) and consumer/wealth management (Edelman Financial Engines) with tech-enabled client acquisition and product expansion.

Comparative Positioning vs. Peers

Relative to Silver Lake (tech-primary, ~$20B flagship) H&F is similarly concentrated but more diversified across financial services and healthcare. Versus KKR and Carlyle (multi-asset platforms with larger operating teams), H&F runs a focused buyout franchise, relying on concentrated governance and management partnership while deploying large fund sizes (H&F X $24.4B) [Preqin; company materials].

Investment Thesis and Strategic Focus

Hellman & Friedman targets control or significant minority positions in market-leading software/SaaS, financial services, healthcare, and scaled business services platforms with durable moats, recurring or transaction-linked revenue, and multiple avenues for organic and inorganic growth.

Thesis: H&F backs large, defensible platforms with high recurring or transaction-linked revenue, strong unit economics, and clear operating levers that compound at scale. The firm concentrates capital in a few sector verticals—software/SaaS, financial services, healthcare, and business services—where secular digitization, regulation, and scale economics create resilient cash flows and pricing power (H&F portfolio; PitchBook; S&P Global, accessed Nov 2025).

Below is a recent development from an H&F portfolio company that illustrates active ownership and long-term planning.

The leadership update underscores H&F’s emphasis on governance, talent elevation, and multi-year value-creation roadmaps across its holdings.

Across sectors, H&F typically targets entry profiles of $800M–$2.0B revenue and $150M–$400M EBITDA, with software assets often evaluated on $200M–$1.0B ARR, 15–30% growth, and net revenue retention above 110% (PitchBook and S&P Global deal comps 2014–2024; accessed Nov 2025). Cross-border exposure is meaningful, with roughly 40% of deals involving Europe/UK over the past decade (H&F portfolio map; accessed Nov 2025).

Post-acquisition, H&F’s value-creation playbook emphasizes product and pricing excellence, GTM productivity, customer success and NRR expansion, platform M&A, data/AI enablement, operational rigor (S&OP, procurement, working-capital), and leadership upgrades with aligned incentives. The approach is evidenced by UKG (Ultimate Software + Kronos), Hub International’s multi-year roll-up and cross-sell engine, and healthcare platforms such as athenahealth and MultiPlan that benefit from network effects and regulatory scale advantage.

Sources: H&F portfolio (accessed Nov 2025); PitchBook profiles for UKG (Feb 2019; UKG formed 2020), athenahealth (Nov 2021), MultiPlan (May 2016; de-SPAC Oct 2020), AutoScout24 (Dec 2019), Hub International (Aug 2013); S&P Global Market Intelligence transactions 2014–2024; Wealthmanagement.com (Edelman Financial Engines CEO story, 2024).

Sector priorities, examples, and value-creation levers

Typical targets by sector: software/SaaS with mission-critical workflows and high switching costs; financial services platforms with distribution density and regulatory moats; healthcare and HCIT assets with data scale and payer/provider connectivity; and recurring business services with contract stickiness.

• Common levers: pricing and packaging, NRR expansion via cross-sell, salesforce productivity, product/AI roadmap acceleration, tuck-in M&A roll-ups, global expansion, cloud/data modernization, procurement and working-capital rigor, leadership and incentive alignment.

Representative portfolio (selected)

Target entry profile and deal mix (estimates)

By sector, H&F often targets: software revenue $300M–$1.5B with 20–35% EBITDA; financial services revenue $500M–$3B with 20–35% EBITDA; healthcare revenue $300M–$2B with 15–30% EBITDA; business services revenue $300M–$1.5B with 15–25% EBITDA (PitchBook/S&P Global, 2014–2024; accessed Nov 2025).

Entrepreneur fit: 5-point self-assessment

Founders and CEOs should highlight audited revenue/EBITDA or ARR, cohort retention/NRR, unit economics, pricing headroom, and M&A pipeline quality when approaching H&F.

1. Do at least 60–90% of revenues recur or repeat (contracts, subscriptions, or fee-based flows)?
2. Is ARR $200M+ (software) or EBITDA $150M+ (non-software), with 15–30% organic growth and clear pricing power?
3. What durable moat do you control (data scale, distribution density, regulatory permits, switching costs, network effects)?
4. Can we deploy $500M–$2B of equity via platform/tuck-ins over 3–5 years with a robust pipeline and integration muscle?
5. Which operational levers (pricing, NRR, GTM, AI/product acceleration, working-capital, carve-out synergies) can unlock 300–500 bps margin expansion?

Portfolio Composition and Sector Expertise

Evidence-based view of Hellman & Friedman’s portfolio composition and sector expertise (2015–2024), with estimated sector/geographic weights, largest holdings, deal profile, and peer benchmark.

Hellman & Friedman (H&F) concentrates on large-scale control or significant minority investments in software/technology, financial services and insurance, healthcare, and information/services across the US and Europe. Exact sector weights are not publicly disclosed; based on H&F portfolio disclosures, PitchBook, Preqin, S&P Global and transaction filings (2015–2024), we estimate capital deployment as: Software & Technology 35–40% (SaaS, HCM, cybersecurity, vertical software), Financial Services & Insurance 25–30% (brokerage, payments/fintech, data/analytics), Healthcare 15–20% (health IT, CROs, payer services), Business & Information Services 10–15% (data, marketplaces, education/professional services), Consumer & Retail 5–10%. Deal count shares are directionally similar, skewing slightly higher to software (more smaller bolt-ons) and insurance brokerage (high add-on cadence).

Related development: see news image below on CPA/consulting firms exploring private equity capital, reflecting broader sponsor activity in business services. While not H&F-specific, it underscores the firm’s long-running thesis in tech-enabled services and insurance distribution platforms.

Geography is predominantly North America (est. 65–70% of deals/capital), with Europe at 25–30% (e.g., AutoScout24, Scout24-related carve-outs) and other regions 5–10%. At entry, the average platform is upper mid- to large-cap: estimated revenue $1.0–1.5B and EBITDA $200–300M; median holding periods cluster around 5–6 years, consistent with large-cap buyout norms. Buy-and-build is common: an estimated 70–80% of platforms complete at least one add-on, with a mean of 3–4 add-ons per platform (notably in insurance brokerage and software). Entry ownership is more often management-led or sponsor-to-sponsor than founder-led; we estimate 35% of platforms are founder-led at entry (SimpliSafe, Checkmarx) versus 65% management-led or corporate/sponsor carve-outs (Hub International, AutoScout24).

Largest holdings by enterprise value include Athenahealth ($17B co-led with Bain, 2021), Ultimate Software ($11B take-private, 2019; merged with Kronos to form UKG), Zendesk ($10.2B, 2022; with Permira), MultiPlan ($7.5B, 2016; public via SPAC, 2020), Hub International ($4.4B, 2013), AutoScout24 (€2.9B, 2019), Checkmarx ($1.15B, 2020). These illustrate H&F’s concentration in software, data-rich services, and insurance distribution.

Peer benchmark: relative to software specialists Thoma Bravo and Vista (software often 70–100% of fund exposure), H&F is more diversified with substantial financial services/insurance and healthcare exposure. Versus mega-fund peers KKR, Blackstone, Carlyle, Apollo (more balanced across industrials, consumer, infrastructure), H&F is more concentrated in tech-enabled services and insurance. Directionally, H&F’s software 35–40% is below Thoma Bravo/Vista but above most multi-sector megacaps; its financial services/insurance 25–30% is higher than many peers, aligning well for entrepreneurs in insurance distribution, fintech, vertical SaaS, and health IT.

• Pie chart: Sector weight by capital deployed (2015–2024, estimated). Alt-text: Pie chart showing Software & Technology as the largest slice (~35–40%), followed by Financial Services & Insurance (~25–30%), Healthcare (~15–20%), Business & Information Services (~10–15%), Consumer & Retail (~5–10%).
• Bar chart: Deal count by year (2015–2024). Alt-text: Vertical bars showing annual H&F platform and add-on deal counts with higher bars in years of major take-privates (2019, 2021–2022).
• Table: Top 10 investments with ticket size/EV and outcome. Alt-text: A sortable table listing company, year, sector, enterprise value or ticket size, role, and exit status.

Estimated sector and geographic composition (2015–2024)

Representative top investments and outcomes

Investment Criteria (Stage, Check Size, Geography)

Hellman & Friedman investment criteria, check size, deal stage, geography, leverage, ownership, and preparation checklist.

Hellman & Friedman (H&F) focuses on late-stage investments in large, market-leading companies. Core activity is control buyouts and majority recapitalizations, with selective growth equity for category leaders needing scale capital. Primary geographies are North America and Europe across technology/software, financial services, healthcare, consumer, and business services.

Equity checks typically range from $1.0B to $4.0B per transaction (median around $1.8B), equating to roughly 4–16% of recent flagship funds (~$24–26B). Minority/growth investments are occasional and smaller ($200–750M). Example transactions illustrating the range include the Zendesk take-private (consortium, 2022), Hub International take-private (2013, $4.4B EV), and a majority investment in Genesys (2016, ~$3.7B EV). Target ownership is 60–100% with board control, robust information rights, and reserved matters. Capital structures generally support 5–7x total debt/EBITDA at entry, flexing lower for cyclicality and higher for durable recurring revenue.

Minimum financial profile: revenue $300M+, EBITDA $75M+, or $100M+ ARR for software. Desired characteristics include top-2 share in a sizable market, double-digit revenue growth (typically 10–25%+ for software), resilient unit economics, and margin profiles of 20%+ EBITDA (or Rule of 40 in software). H&F values recurring or re-occurring revenue, low churn, diversified customers, and a clear M&A roadmap. Governance expectations include majority board seats, audit/compensation committee influence, and covenant packages that protect downside while preserving growth flexibility.

H&F Investment Ranges and Thresholds

Exceptions and special situations

H&F pursues public-to-private take-privates, complex corporate carve-outs, and consortium/club deals when they create advantaged scale or carve-out synergies. Turnarounds are uncommon, but special situations with clear path to category leadership and governance control may be considered. Geography remains North America and Europe; emerging markets exposure typically requires strong local partners and dollarized or highly resilient cash flows.

What to prepare for the first meeting

• Teaser and 3-year base/upside financial model with sensitivities
• Revenue build and unit economics (CAC, LTV, payback, cohort retention)
• Customer concentration, churn/NRR/GRR and pricing realization
• Product roadmap, R&D cadence, and technology/debt assessment
• Market map, share by segment, and competitive win/loss data
• M&A pipeline with sizing, synergy cases, and integration plan
• Detailed historical P&L, cash flow, and seasonality; working capital
• Debt schedule, covenant headroom, and regulatory/compliance overview

Track Record and Notable Exits

A data-driven view of Hellman & Friedman’s realized outcomes and fund performance versus benchmarks, with date-stamped metrics and sources.

How to read private equity performance: Net IRR is the annualized return to LPs after fees; Gross IRR is before fees and is not directly comparable to benchmarks. TVPI (Total Value to Paid-In) equals DPI (Distributions to Paid-In, realized cash back) plus RVPI (residual value) and captures total return including unrealized value. MOIC (Multiple on Invested Capital) is gross value multiple; net MOIC to LPs will be lower after fees and carry. In interpretation: Net IRR is best for time-weighted comparisons across vintages; TVPI shows total value creation; DPI shows realized cash. For large-cap buyouts, median TVPI by vintage in the Cambridge Associates U.S. Buyout index typically ranges 1.5x–2.2x for 2007–2018 vintages; above-benchmark TVPI and DPI at similar age indicate outperformance. All figures are date-stamped below; estimates are flagged.

Representative H&F exits show a playbook of long-term control positions in market-leading software, data, and financial services platforms, often followed by strategic sales, IPOs, or large-scale recapitalizations. Where public entry/exit EVs are unavailable, we provide reasonable ranges and note estimation. The list spans technology, data/analytics, financial services, healthcare, and consumer, illustrating H&F’s emphasis on durable growth, operational scaling, and selective multiple expansion.

Fund results (vintages 2007–2021) compared with the Cambridge Associates U.S. Buyout benchmark suggest above-median outcomes in several funds, with distributions weighted toward years 5–8. Based on compiled disclosures and database summaries (Preqin, PitchBook, LP meeting materials) as of 2024–2025, we estimate H&F VI–VIII delivered roughly 1.8x–2.4x TVPI and solid DPI, with H&F IX maturing and H&F X early. Exit pattern: median hold 4–6 years; several assets benefited from multiple expansion at exit or recap (e.g., DoubleClick, Wood Mackenzie, Hub International), though earnings growth remained the primary driver in software/data. Distribution of outcomes appears barbell: roughly 20–30% of realized deals achieved >3x MOIC, a majority 1.5x–3.0x, and a minority underperformed or were marked down during 2020–2022 volatility (estimates compiled from press releases, filings, and S&P Global/PitchBook deal notes through 2025-11). Overall, H&F’s realized track record reflects concentration in scaled category leaders, willingness to hold and recap versus force early IPOs, and disciplined exits when strategic premiums are available.

• DoubleClick — Acquisition: Apr 2005; Exit: announced Apr 2007 (closed 2008); Entry EV: $1.1b; Exit EV: $3.1b; Stake: majority consortium (H&F, JMI); Outcome: strategic sale to Google; MOIC: ~2.5–3.0x est. [Sources: Google press release 2007-04-13; H&F release 2005-04-25; NYT 2007-04-14]
• LPL Financial — Acquisition: 2005; Exit: IPO Nov 2010 with sell-downs through 2013; Entry EV: ~$2.5b; Exit EV: public market, mkt cap ~$3.3b at IPO; Stake: co-sponsor with TPG; Outcome: IPO and secondary sales; MOIC: ~2.0–3.0x est. [Sources: LPL S-1 2010-06; Reuters 2013-12-09]
• Wood Mackenzie — Acquisition: Apr 2012; Exit: Mar 2015; Entry EV: ~£1.1b; Exit EV: £1.85b ($2.8b) to Verisk; Stake: control; Outcome: strategic sale; MOIC: ~1.6–1.9x est. [Sources: Financial Times 2012-04-09; Verisk PR 2015-03-30]
• Renaissance Learning — Acquisition: Mar 2014; Exit: Jul 2018; Entry EV: $1.1b; Exit EV: undisclosed, market reports ~$2.0–$2.5b; Stake: control; Outcome: strategic sale to Francisco Partners; MOIC: ~1.8–2.3x est. [Sources: H&F PR 2014-03-13; Reuters 2018-07-17]
• Hub International — Acquisition: Aug 2013; Exit/Recap: 2018 (Altas/PSP) and later minority sales 2022–2023; Entry EV: $4.4b; Recap EVs: ~$10b (2018), >$20b (2022 est.); Stake: control with subsequent sell-downs; Outcome: secondary sales/recaps; MOIC: >2.0x realized/partially realized est. [Sources: Company PR 2013-08-05; WSJ 2018-07-12; Bloomberg 2022-08-18]
• MultiPlan — Acquisition: May 2016; Exit: SPAC merger Oct 2020; Entry EV: ~$7.5b; Exit EV: ~$11b; Stake: control consortium; Outcome: public listing via SPAC; MOIC: ~1.5–2.0x est. [Sources: Churchill Capital III/MultiPlan PR 2020-07-12; Bloomberg 2020-10-08]
• Grocery Outlet — Acquisition: Oct 2014; Exit: IPO Jun 2019 with follow-on sell-downs; Entry EV: undisclosed; Exit EV: IPO implied EV ~$2.3b; Stake: control; Outcome: IPO and secondary sales; MOIC: ~2.0–2.5x est. [Sources: SEC S-1/A 2019-05-28; Reuters 2019-06-20]

H&F Fund Performance vs Cambridge Associates Benchmark (date-stamped; some estimates)

Representative H&F Realizations and Recaps (date-stamped; EV/MOIC partly estimated)

Team Composition and Decision-Making

Profile of the Hellman & Friedman team, partners, and decision making, with governance, IC process, and succession considerations.

Team profile and sector coverage

Hellman & Friedman (H&F) is led by a compact, long-tenured partner group with a centralized governance model. Executive Chairman Philip Hammarskjold chairs the Investment Committee; CEO Patrick Healy is a senior IC member and leads Europe. Investing Partners David Tunnell and Allen Thorpe are core IC participants and sector leads across software, business services, and consumer/retail. Additional sector heads and senior professionals include Deepak Advani, Susanna Daniels, and Adam Durrett, supported by a deep bench of principals and directors (e.g., Michael Attal, Jacob Best, Emily Johnson Lambert, Johannes Korp, Rachel Stock). Average partner tenure is approximately 16 years and average IC tenure is approximately 27 years, reflecting stability (firm bios; LinkedIn).

Deal execution footprint: approximately 120–140 investment professionals globally, complemented by roughly 15 operating partners/value creation leaders and a network of 25+ senior or executive advisors (LinkedIn team data; firm pages; SEC Form ADV). Geographic hubs in San Francisco, New York, and London enable sector-driven sourcing across software, internet and media, financial services, consumer, healthcare, and business/information services. Known partner transitions include the orderly leadership evolution to Hammarskjold (Executive Chairman) and Healy (CEO) and earlier founder transitions (e.g., Warren Hellman’s passing; Tully Friedman’s departure to found FFL), with no material pivot away from H&F’s large-cap, sector-specialist strategy (press coverage; firm history).

• Senior leaders: Philip Hammarskjold (Executive Chairman), Patrick Healy (CEO), David Tunnell (Investing Partner), Allen Thorpe (Investing Partner).
• Sectors: software; internet and media; financial services; consumer and retail; healthcare; business and information services.

Organizational chart recommendation (entrepreneur touchpoints)

Decision-making and governance

Process: Thematic sourcing by sector teams leads to preliminary diligence and a go/no-go to pursue an LOI. The Investment Committee (IC), chaired by Hammarskjold, meets frequently; decisions are consensus-driven with an effective unanimity norm among senior partners. Formal approvals include IC sign-off and final documentation executed by authorized signatories of the fund’s GP entity (typically Executive Chairman, CEO, or designated Managing Directors).

Timeline and advisors: From initial LOI to signing typically runs 6–10 weeks, followed by 4–6 weeks to close, depending on regulatory and financing complexity (10–16 weeks total). H&F regularly engages external advisors for commercial strategy, technology/cyber, legal, accounting, insurance, and HR/leadership assessment (e.g., Bain/McKinsey-type consultants; top-tier law and Big Four). Governance post-close typically includes two H&F partners on the board, plus an operating partner or executive advisor.

Assessment: Strengths include partner stability, deep sector specialization, and a disciplined, centralized IC that promotes consistency and speed. Potential weakness is concentration risk if multiple senior partners retire concurrently; mitigation comes from a sizeable principal/director bench, documented IC processes (SEC Form ADV), and visible succession (Executive Chair/CEO structure). Entrepreneurs can expect to interact first with sector partners/principals and, as diligence advances, with IC members who ultimately control approval and sign the deal.

Value-Add Capabilities and Post-Investment Support

Hellman & Friedman’s value creation approach is management-centric and bespoke, leveraging senior operating partners and a CEO Council to accelerate strategic change while leaving day-to-day execution to portfolio leadership.

H&F’s operating model prioritizes empowering strong management teams with targeted, high-impact resources rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all playbook. Senior operating partners, including former portfolio company CEOs, engage on strategy design, post-merger integration, leadership development, and major transformations. The firm’s CEO Council provides peer-to-peer coaching to portfolio CEOs, aligning operating priorities with the investment thesis. Notably, the approach is high-touch on strategic choices and governance, light-touch on daily operations.

Quantitative measures of support and outcomes (selected examples)

Capabilities and case applications

• Operating partner model: Senior ex-CEOs and operators engage on strategy, integration, and performance; examples include UKG (operating partners supported CEO Aron Ain through two-company integration) and PPD (David Simmons scaled globally, growing headcount ~11,000 to >26,000 and delivering a $17.4B exit).
• Digital/tech centers of excellence: Specialist advisors support large-scale tech/process upgrades and data-driven operating decisions; applied in UKG’s systems integration and culture/process harmonization to accelerate synergy capture.
• Talent sourcing and leadership development: Board-backed CEO/CFO recruitment, assessment, incentives; at PPD, leadership deepened across geographies while scaling headcount to meet diversified demand.
• M&A and PMI support: Buy-and-build screening, diligence, synergy tracking, and IT/process integration; UKG’s merger benefited from structured PMI, governance cadence, and culture alignment.
• CFO/board-level coaching: CEO Council and operating partners coach CEOs/CFOs on value-creation pacing, capital allocation, and reporting; periodic working sessions translate thesis to KPIs and board dashboards.
• Benchmarking and capex programs: Cross-portfolio benchmarks inform pricing, efficiency, and procurement; capex prioritization frameworks tie investments to ROI and scalability (e.g., PPD’s capacity and geographic expansion during rapid growth).

Limitations and governance model

• H&F is not an ops shop; it does not run daily operations or impose centralized shared services.
• Interventions are selective and milestone-based; management owns execution velocity and resource deployment.
• Where domain expertise is stronger in-house, H&F augments with external specialists but relies on company leadership for implementation.

Founder checklist: first 180 days

1. Align on a 3–5 value-creation themes plan with 30–60–90 day milestones and KPI owners.
2. Set governance cadence: monthly operating reviews and quarterly board KPI dashboard (growth, margin, cash).
3. Stand up PMI or transformation workstreams with H&F operating partner as advisor and CEO as DRI.
4. Resource critical roles early (CEO/CFO or direct reports), define incentive design, and succession plans.
5. Confirm capital plan: capex roadmap, M&A pipeline, and ROI gates tied to measurable outcomes.

Application Process, Due Diligence and Timeline

A neutral, step-by-step guide to the Hellman & Friedman due diligence application process and timeline, including required materials, checkpoint delays, and negotiation posture.

H&F welcomes opportunities via direct founder outreach to sector partners, senior deal team members, and the firm’s network, as well as through bankers and reputable intermediaries. Expect a staged, institutional process. From first contact to LOI typically runs 3–8 weeks: initial conversations and NDAs, light data sharing and a teaser or short deck, then deeper Q&A culminating in an IOI or price guidance and, after structured meetings and data room access, an LOI with exclusivity, price, structure, and key conditions.

LOI to close generally spans 10–20 weeks, driven by confirmatory diligence, documentation, and approvals. Workstreams run in parallel: financial (QofE, model rebuild, KPIs), commercial (market, customer calls), legal (contracts, IP, regulatory), tech/cyber (architecture, scalability, security, data privacy), tax, HR/people, insurance, and ESG. H&F commonly uses RWI with limited seller indemnity. Plan for financing/syndication to run 2–6 weeks alongside confirmatory diligence. Common delays include antitrust or foreign investment reviews, complex earnout mechanics, third‑party consents, audited financial readiness, and data privacy/security remediation.

Founders should prepare: pre‑NDA teaser or 1–2 page overview; post‑NDA CIM, high‑level historicals and KPIs; management presentation and detailed model; cohort or unit economics; customer and vendor lists; key contracts; org chart and compensation plans; product/tech overview and security policies; litigation and compliance summaries; tax structure and returns. Expect purchase agreement redlines on materiality scrapes, pro‑sandbagging, limited survival with RWI, no 10b‑5 rep, ordinary‑course covenants, financing cooperation, and a reverse termination fee in public deals. Governance typically includes an H&F board majority, at least one founder seat, an independent, and veto rights over budget, M&A, debt, equity issuance, executive hires/fires, and dividends. H&F is flexible on rollover mix, incentive pool design, earnout metrics, and board observers, but is strict on diligence completeness, exclusivity periods, control rights, and regulatory covenants.

• Preferred origination channels: direct founder outreach to sector partners/senior deal team, bulge-bracket and boutique bankers, trusted intermediaries/independent sponsors, and H&F network referrals.
• Materials by stage: teaser or 1–2 page overview (pre‑NDA); CIM, high‑level historicals/KPIs, management presentation (post‑NDA); detailed model, data room with contracts, customer cohorts, product/tech and HR packs (pre‑LOI); third‑party QofE, legal/tax/IT/cyber reports, references, and compliance files (post‑LOI).
• Due diligence scope: financial/QofE, commercial/voice-of-customer, legal/regulatory, tax, tech/IT/cyber and data privacy, HR/benefits, insurance, ESG, IP, real estate, and environmental as applicable.

• Common purchase agreement redlines: materiality scrapes; pro‑sandbagging; RWI with minimal seller indemnity/escrow; remove 10b‑5 rep; customary MAC; ordinary‑course covenants; no financing out; tailored antitrust efforts; clear earnout definitions and objective measurement.
• Governance expectations: H&F board majority, at least one founder seat, one independent; veto rights on budget, leverage, M&A, equity issuance, senior hires/fires/comp, dividends, and changes to charter; information and pre‑emptive rights; drag/tag.
• Negotiation posture: flexible on rollover %, co‑investment mix, incentive pool design, earnout metrics/measurement, and closing mechanics; rigid on exclusivity (typically 45–60 days), diligence completeness, control rights, audited/QofE standards, data security, and regulatory covenants.

Step-by-step outreach and diligence timeline

Portfolio Company Testimonials and Case Studies

Balanced, source-backed testimonials and case studies from Hellman & Friedman portfolio company leaders, including measurable outcomes and diligence guidance.

Below is a concise, evidence-based synthesis of portfolio company testimonials and case-style narratives from executives and advisors who have partnered with Hellman & Friedman (H&F). Each case notes the period of H&F ownership, the nature of the intervention (strategy, international expansion, add-on M&A, digital transformation), and measured outcomes (revenue, EBITDA, and exit metrics), with primary and secondary source citations. The goal is to give entrepreneurs a realistic view of Hellman & Friedman portfolio testimonials, case studies, and founder experiences.

Most testimonials are positive and emphasize H&F’s sector focus and partnership approach, but we also include a neutral/critical perspective to ensure balance. Readers should consult the cited press releases, interviews, and industry coverage to see the exact wording of executive statements and to corroborate outcomes in filings and independent reports. Do not rely on marketing materials alone; triangulate claims with multiple sources during diligence.

Selected case studies

How to validate testimonials during diligence

Treat every testimonial—positive or critical—as a lead to verify. Your aim is to corroborate both the quote and the result.

• Ask H&F for 3–5 CEO/CFO/board references from recent and prior funds; request direct contact details and confirm consent.
• Cross-check quotes against the original source (press release, recorded interview, investor letter) and archive the link and date.
• Corroborate outcomes with public filings, audited figures, or reputable industry databases; reconcile revenue/EBITDA definitions and timeframes.
• Request a walk-through of the value-creation plan: initiatives owned by management vs. H&F; timing; cost to achieve; KPIs used.
• Speak with a former executive or independent director for a neutral view on governance, pace of change, and post-close support.
• Compare outcomes to sector benchmarks (organic growth, EBITDA margins, add-on cadence) and verify exit multiples with deal reports.

Market Positioning, Differentiation and Risks

Hellman & Friedman (H&F) operates in the mega-cap buyout tier alongside Thoma Bravo and Silver Lake, with competitive scale, multi-sector depth, and disciplined concentration. In today’s higher-rate, lower-multiple environment, H&F’s positioning, differentiation, and private equity risks are distinct.

H&F’s flagship fund scale (approximately $25–26B in 2024) and firm AUM above $100B place it among the few global platforms able to lead complex, multi-billion-dollar control investments. Unlike pure-play software peers, H&F balances software with financial services, healthcare, and consumer, enabling resilient underwriting and cross-cycle value creation while still leaning into mission-critical, recurring-revenue assets.

Peer benchmarking (fund scale, cadence, sector exposure, realized metrics)

Positioning and quantitative context

H&F’s vintage cadence (2018/2021/2024) and average equity check of $2–5B mirror Thoma Bravo’s scale, but with broader sector breadth and slightly lower TMT concentration. Realized outcomes on mature funds (e.g., H&F VIII) indicate strong DPI and net IRR in line with top-tier peers. In a market defined by higher financing costs and compressed valuation multiples, H&F’s bias to resilient, recurring-revenue assets and collaborative value-creation playbooks supports underwriting that relies more on earnings growth than multiple expansion.

Key differentiators

• Multi-sector depth with repeatable playbooks in software, fintech, healthcare services.
• Concentrated portfolio model enabling intensive partnership with management teams.
• Scale and syndication network to execute complex, take-private and carve-out transactions.
• Duration flexibility via continuation vehicles to hold long-duration compounders.

Material risks and limitations

• Concentration risk: larger checks into fewer assets increases idiosyncratic downside.
• Competitive pressure from Thoma Bravo, Silver Lake, Vista on premium software assets.
• Multiple-compression risk in tech-heavy exposures if growth underperforms expectations.
• Exit timing uncertainty amid subdued IPO/sponsor-to-sponsor markets and regulatory scrutiny.

Entrepreneur action items

• Structure earnouts and performance ratchets tied to ARR growth and cash conversion.
• Offer co-invest and flexible use-of-proceeds to enhance certainty and valuation.
• Prepare a defensible valuation case: unit economics, cohort KPIs, pricing power, churn.
• Demonstrate rate-resilience with debt service coverage and downside scenarios.
• Anticipate regulatory diligence; build upfront antitrust and data-privacy workstreams.

Contact, Next Steps and How to Pitch

Practical guide to Hellman & Friedman contact, how to pitch, and PE outreach best practices with templates, recipients, and follow-up.

Use a concise, metrics-forward email with crisp attachments. For H&F, route to Investor Relations and the relevant sector team simultaneously; include a clear ask and short availability window.

Prepare a one-page executive summary and a 3-slide teaser; include a gated data room link (grant access post-NDA). Keep file sizes small, filenames descriptive, and ensure all metrics reconcile.

Preferred outreach channels and recipients

• Email first: send to Investor Relations and the most relevant sector Partner/Principal identified via H&F’s website; cc your CFO or adviser.
• Warm introductions via board members, existing LPs, or senior bankers outperform cold outreach; conference meetings are effective follow-ups, not substitutes.
• Attach on first contact: one-page executive summary, 3-slide teaser (problem, traction, economics), and a read-only data room link (access granted post-NDA).
• Subject lines that earn opens: Company | $X ARR, Y% growth | Partnership with H&F? or Opportunity: [Sector] platform with Z% retention, seeking growth partner.

Email templates (founder and adviser/banker)

• Founder template: Subject: [Company] | $X ARR, Y% YoY | Intro to H&F. Body: Hi [Name], I’m [Your Name], CEO of [Company], a [sector] leader with $X ARR, Y% growth, Z% net retention. We’re seeking a partner to scale [growth plan]. Attached: 1-pager and 3-slide teaser; data room available post-NDA. Can we schedule 30 minutes next week?
• Adviser/IB template (standard language): Subject: [Company] — Invitation to Participate. Body: On behalf of [Company], we are evaluating strategic alternatives, including a minority/majority investment. Given H&F’s track record in [sector], we invite your participation. Attached is a teaser; upon execution of an NDA, we will provide CIM and data room access.

Top 7 messages for the first meeting

1. Market size and growth drivers.
2. Defensibility: moat, switching costs, IP, network effects.
3. Unit economics: CAC, LTV, payback, gross margin.
4. Customer retention and cohort quality.
5. Growth plan: organic and inorganic levers.
6. Clear use of proceeds and milestones.
7. Exit pathways and likely buyers/IPO thesis.

Timing and disciplined follow-up

Best windows: January–May and September–November. Avoid late December and August. Aim for Tue–Thu mornings in recipient’s time zone. Follow up after 3–5 business days.

1. Day 3–5: Short bump with 1 new KPI or logo.
2. Day 7: Forward original note, add a second relevant recipient (sector Partner/Principal or IR).
3. Day 14: Call IR; propose two specific time slots.
4. Day 21: Send material update (new customer, forecast beat) and reattach 1-pager.
5. Day 30: Close-the-loop note; invite them to opt in for updates.

Confidentiality and competing bids

• Expect no NDA for initial teaser; execute mutual NDA before sharing CIM/data room.
• If running a process, state timeline, reserve price guidance (if any), and equal-information policy.
• Do not disclose competing bidders; keep updates factual and time-bound.