Build a Multi Scenario Comparison

This guide shows how to compare several scenarios in Model Reef by using separate models for each case and then lining up their outputs side by side.

Model Reef does not store scenarios inside a single model. Each scenario is a separate model file with its own variables, branches and Data Library. Comparison is done by designing a clean set of models and then pulling results together.

Before you start

You should have:

• A solid Base Case model for the business.

• A clear idea of what you want to vary between scenarios, for example:

  • Growth assumptions.

  • Pricing.

  • Cost structure.

  • Capital structure.

• Valuation configured in the Base Case, or at least a complete three statement model.

If your foundation is not ready, start with:

• Build a Full Financial Model from Scratch

• Build a DCF Model (FCFF)

What you will build

By the end you will have:

• At least three separate models:

  • Scenario A (for example Base Case).

  • Scenario B (for example Upside case).

  • Scenario C (for example Downside case).

• A consistent set of outputs from each model:

  • P&L.

  • Balance Sheet.

  • Cashflow Statement.

  • Cash Waterfall.

  • Valuation metrics.

• A simple way to compare A vs B vs C in one place.

1

Finalise your Base Case model

Open your Base Case model and confirm that:

• Revenue, COGS, Opex, Staff, Tax and capex are in place.

• Loans and equity injections are configured if relevant.

• Working capital timing is set up using delays.

Check outputs:

• P&L looks realistic.

• Cash Waterfall reconciles with the Cashflow Statement.

• Valuation metrics are plausible.

This will be the reference point that your other scenarios build from.

2

Duplicate the Base Case to create scenarios

Decide what your three comparison cases represent, for example:

• A: Base Case.

• B: Upside Case (better growth or margins).

• C: Downside Case (worse growth or margins).

Create them as separate models:

• Duplicate the Base Case model twice.

• Rename the copies, for example:

  • Company - Scenario A - Base.

  • Company - Scenario B - Upside.

  • Company - Scenario C - Downside.

• Confirm that all three models open and run without errors.

Each model is now a full copy of the Base Case ready for customisation.

3

Decide what to change in each scenario

For each scenario model, pick a small number of levers to change so differences remain interpretable, for example:

• Revenue drivers:

  • Unit growth.

  • Price changes.

• Cost drivers:

  • COGS per unit.

  • Opex as a percentage of revenue.

• Financing:

  • Debt levels.

  • Interest rates.

• Capex and working capital intensity.

Write down the intended differences so you can document them alongside the comparison later.

4

Apply changes in each scenario model

Open each scenario model and adjust assumptions.

Scenario B example (Upside)

• Increase unit growth drivers by a few percentage points.

• Improve gross margin by reducing cost per unit slightly.

• Consider slightly higher capex if it supports growth.

Scenario C example (Downside)

• Reduce unit growth.

• Slightly increase COGS per unit or keep prices flat.

• Add delays to customer payments to stress working capital.

As you change each model, check P&L and Cash Waterfall to ensure the scenario behaves as intended and remains internally consistent.

5

Record key outputs for each scenario

For each scenario model, capture a small set of comparable metrics, for example:

• For a selected year or final forecast year:

  • Revenue.

  • EBITDA.

  • NPAT.

  • Closing cash.

• Valuation metrics:

  • Project NPV.

  • Project IRR.

  • Equity IRR.

  • Money Multiple.

• Risk metrics if you track them, for example minimum cash balance.

You can export these as CSV or copy values to a comparison sheet or note.

6

Build a comparison view

Model Reef does not force a specific comparison layout, but a simple structure works well, for example:

• Rows: key metrics (Revenue, EBITDA, NPAT, Cash, NPV, IRR).

• Columns: Scenario A, Scenario B, Scenario C.

• Optional extra columns for differences, for example B minus A or C minus A.

Populate this from the outputs of each model. This gives a concise comparison of how results move under different assumptions.

7

Add narrative and decision context

For each scenario, briefly document:

• The assumption changes made.

• The strategic interpretation, for example:

  • Upside requires aggressive hiring and marketing.

  • Downside reflects macro headwinds or weaker sales execution.

• The implications for funding, risk and decision making.

You can store this as notes in the models themselves, in external documentation, or both.

Check your work

• Scenario models are structurally identical and differ only where intended.

• Key metrics are extracted for the same periods and definitions across models.

• Differences between scenarios can be traced back to clear assumption changes.

• The comparison view is simple enough to explain in a meeting or slide.

Troubleshooting

Scenarios diverge for reasons you cannot explain

Check that you did not accidentally reclassify variables or change structural elements differently between models. Keep structural edits for a separate exercise from pure assumption scenarios.

It is hard to keep track of which model is which

Adopt a consistent naming convention and document the purpose of each scenario clearly in its name and internal notes.

Stakeholders ask for too many scenarios

Focus on a small set of representative cases, such as Base, Upside and Downside, and only add more if they generate new insight.

Related articles

• Multi-Client Profitability

• Time & Periodicity Basics

• What Is Model Reef?

• Multi-Branch Driver Behaviour