top of page
4Artboard 3_2x_edited_edited.png

The UK’s home for tokenised equity. Independent news, insight and resources for founders raising capital, investors deploying it, and the firms supporting both — as the regulation, infrastructure and opportunity converge.

Haatch Portfolio Data Undercuts the SaaSpocalypse Narrative as Revenue Keeps Growing While Headcount Stands Still

Writer: Shawn Jhanji
Shawn Jhanji
3 days ago
2 min read
While public software stocks have taken a beating and social feeds have spent six weeks declaring a SaaSpocalypse, one UK seed investor's own portfolio numbers tell a calmer story about what is actually happening inside early stage software companies. Haatch, the Stamford based seed investor known for its SEIS and EIS fund programme, tracks roughly 200 early stage B2B software companies across fintech, vertical SaaS, healthtech and edtech. Across that cohort, the firm says median revenue growth has run at around 50 per cent annualised over the past two years. Median headcount growth over the same period was zero. Haatch's own reading of its data is that the SaaSpocalypse framing, like most narratives that move this fast, is partly right, partly overblown and mostly missing the point. What has genuinely changed is not that early stage software companies are collapsing, it is that they are growing revenue without growing headcount, an efficiency shift rather than a downturn. The apocalypse framing, on this reading, describes how public markets are repricing software stocks, not what is actually happening inside the companies being built and funded today. For founders, the practical implication is a reframing of what a healthy seed to Series A trajectory now looks like. A company that would once have hired aggressively to signal growth can instead show revenue scaling on a flat or near flat headcount base, changing how much capital it needs to raise, and on what terms, at each stage. Investors assessing new deals are increasingly likely to treat headcount growth as a weaker signal of progress than it once was, and to look instead at revenue per employee and the tooling, often AI driven, that lets small teams cover more ground. The data itself is also notable for a reason that goes beyond the SaaSpocalypse debate. Funds publishing their own portfolio level performance data, rather than headline exits or unicorn valuations, is relatively rare, and it gives founders and other investors a rare outside look at what ordinary, non headline growth actually looks like. That kind of fund transparency is itself a small but useful contribution to a market where survivorship bias usually dominates the public narrative. A fair caveat applies. The sample is Haatch's own portfolio, selected and backed by Haatch, so it is not a random cross section of UK early stage software and will reflect the firm's own investment thesis and selection choices. It should be read as directionally consistent with a broader AI driven efficiency story in software, rather than as a representative market wide statistic.

While public software stocks have taken a beating and social feeds have spent six weeks declaring a SaaSpocalypse, one UK seed investor's own portfolio numbers tell a calmer story about what is actually happening inside early stage software companies.

Haatch, the Stamford based seed investor known for its SEIS and EIS fund programme, tracks roughly 200 early stage B2B software companies across fintech, vertical SaaS, healthtech and edtech. Across that cohort, the firm says median revenue growth has run at around 50 per cent annualised over the past two years. Median headcount growth over the same period was zero.


Haatch's own reading of its data is that the SaaSpocalypse framing, like most narratives that move this fast, is partly right, partly overblown and mostly missing the point. What has genuinely changed is not that early stage software companies are collapsing, it is that they are growing revenue without growing headcount, an efficiency shift rather than a downturn. The apocalypse framing, on this reading, describes how public markets are repricing software stocks, not what is actually happening inside the companies being built and funded today.


For founders, the practical implication is a reframing of what a healthy seed to Series A trajectory now looks like. A company that would once have hired aggressively to signal growth can instead show revenue scaling on a flat or near flat headcount base, changing how much capital it needs to raise, and on what terms, at each stage. Investors assessing new deals are increasingly likely to treat headcount growth as a weaker signal of progress than it once was, and to look instead at revenue per employee and the tooling, often AI driven, that lets small teams cover more ground.


The data itself is also notable for a reason that goes beyond the SaaSpocalypse debate. Funds publishing their own portfolio level performance data, rather than headline exits or unicorn valuations, is relatively rare, and it gives founders and other investors a rare outside look at what ordinary, non headline growth actually looks like. That kind of fund transparency is itself a small but useful contribution to a market where survivorship bias usually dominates the public narrative.


A fair caveat applies. The sample is Haatch's own portfolio, selected and backed by Haatch, so it is not a random cross section of UK early stage software and will reflect the firm's own investment thesis and selection choices. It should be read as directionally consistent with a broader AI driven efficiency story in software, rather than as a representative market wide statistic.


Key Takeaways

  • Across roughly 200 early stage B2B software companies Haatch tracks, median revenue growth ran at around 50 per cent annualised over two years while median headcount growth was zero.

  • Haatch frames this as evidence of an efficiency shift inside early stage software, not the collapse implied by SaaSpocalypse headlines describing public market reaction.

  • For founders, leaner headcount to revenue ratios could reshape how much capital is needed at each stage and change what investors treat as a healthy growth signal.


The data is a rare piece of fund level transparency, though it reflects one investor's own selected portfolio rather than a representative market sample.


Sources

Comments

bottom of page