Two studies, two jobs.

Both studies are credible; the question is which one answers your question. Getting the match right is the difference between a benchmark that informs a decision and one that quietly misleads it. This is the comparison; the practical revenue-and-use-case routing is the selection guide.

§ 01 · Two different jobsOperations vs valuation.

The studies were built for different purposes, and it shows in everything from sample to metric.

GPS reaches further down-market (it has a sub-$500K tier and segments by rural/suburban/urban and commercial/personal focus) and carries the trust-position ratio that matters for compliance. BPS reaches further up-market, separates organic from acquired growth, and provides a top-quartile benchmark — the aspirational figure for high performers.

§ 02 · The metric trapsWhere they don't line up.

The studies use overlapping vocabulary for non-identical metrics, and three mismatches cause most errors. Profit: GPS pre-tax profit includes depreciation and amortization and excludes add-backs; BPS EBITDA strips both — so an 8% GPS figure is not an 8% BPS figure, and the two typically differ by 1–3 points. Growth: GPS total revenue growth lumps organic and acquired together; BPS separates them, and organic growth is the primary valuation driver. Productivity: GPS often measures commission-only while BPS uses all net revenue — so for an agency with meaningful fee income, the two diverge sharply. The rule is simple: verify the definition before comparing across studies.

§ 03 · When to use eachThe match.

Use GPS for small agencies (under ~$1.25M), location-specific analysis, operational-efficiency and expense work, and trust-position compliance. Use BPS for large agencies ($5M+), M&A valuation (its EBITDA is the standard a lender or acquirer expects), growth-driver analysis, and top-quartile comparison. The overlap band — roughly $1.25M to $3M — is where both apply, and where the GPS tiers and BPS tiers cross boundaries, so an agency there should read both.

§ 04 · Using bothTriangulation.

The strongest read uses both and triangulates. Run the agency against GPS for operational detail and BPS for valuation metrics, then compare directions: when both studies flag the same variance — say, above-market owner compensation — it's a strong, defensible signal; when only one flags it, investigate whether it's a real anomaly or a methodology artifact. For an M&A target especially, BPS sets the valuation frame and GPS supplies the operational diligence underneath it. The deeper read on the profitability side is the BPS methodology explainer, and the EBITDA the valuation rests on is in modern valuation methodologies.

◆