Work out customer lifetime value three ways, with the LTV to CAC ratio and payback month, and see why zero churn breaks the usual formula.
Ask three people for a customer lifetime value and you will get three numbers, because CLV names three different calculations and almost nobody says which one they ran. The Customer Lifetime Value Calculator does all three from the same inputs and puts the model name beside the figure, so the answer can be checked rather than taken on trust.
The gap is not academic. On the sample below, the churn model returns 1,306.67 and the present-value model returns 1,001.31 from identical numbers, a 23% difference that is entirely the choice of formula. If a board deck and a payback model disagree, this is usually why.
Enter an acquisition cost as well and you also get the two figures people actually decide on: the LTV to CAC ratio, and the month the acquisition cost is finally repaid. Everything runs in your browser, so unpublished revenue figures stay unpublished.
Load Sample fills in a subscription seat at 49 per month, 80% gross margin, 3% monthly churn and an acquisition cost of 420, on the churn model. Gross margin works out at 39.20 a month, and 3% churn implies an average lifespan of 33.3 months, so lifetime value is 1,306.67. Against a 420 acquisition cost that is a ratio of 3.11 to 1, just inside the band investors look for, and the cost is repaid during month 11. Now switch to Discounted without touching an input: the same customer is worth 1,001.31 and the ratio falls to 2.38, because money arriving in year three is not worth what money arriving this month is worth.
m × r ÷ (1 + d − r), where r is monthly retention and d the monthly discount rate. It is the only one of the three that survives perfect retention, which is the next section.Lifespan is derived as 1 ÷ monthly churn
| Month | Contribution | Cumulative | After CAC |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 39.20 | 39.20 | -380.80 |
| 2 | 38.02 | 77.22 | -342.78 |
| 3 | 36.88 | 114.11 | -305.89 |
| 4 | 35.78 | 149.88 | -270.12 |
| 5 | 34.70 | 184.59 | -235.41 |
| 6 | 33.66 | 218.25 | -201.75 |
| 7 | 32.65 | 250.90 | -169.10 |
| 8 | 31.67 | 282.58 | -137.42 |
| 9 | 30.72 | 313.30 | -106.70 |
| 10 | 29.80 | 343.10 | -76.90 |
| 11 | 28.91 | 372.01 | -47.99 |
| 12 | 28.04 | 400.05 | -19.95 |
| 13 | 27.20 | 427.24 | 7.24 |
| 14 | 26.38 | 453.63 | 33.63 |
| 15 | 25.59 | 479.22 | 59.22 |
| 16 | 24.82 | 504.04 | 84.04 |
| 17 | 24.08 | 528.12 | 108.12 |
| 18 | 23.36 | 551.48 | 131.48 |
| 19 | 22.66 | 574.13 | 154.13 |
| 20 | 21.98 | 596.11 | 176.11 |
| 21 | 21.32 | 617.43 | 197.43 |
| 22 | 20.68 | 638.10 | 218.10 |
| 23 | 20.06 | 658.16 | 238.16 |
| 24 | 19.46 | 677.61 | 257.61 |
| 25 | 18.87 | 696.49 | 276.49 |
| 26 | 18.31 | 714.79 | 294.79 |
| 27 | 17.76 | 732.55 | 312.55 |
| 28 | 17.22 | 749.77 | 329.77 |
| 29 | 16.71 | 766.48 | 346.48 |
| 30 | 16.21 | 782.68 | 362.68 |
| 31 | 15.72 | 798.40 | 378.40 |
| 32 | 15.25 | 813.65 | 393.65 |
| 33 | 14.79 | 828.44 | 408.44 |
| 34 | 14.35 | 842.79 | 422.79 |
| 35 | 13.92 | 856.71 | 436.71 |
| 36 | 13.50 | 870.20 | 450.20 |
| 37 | 13.09 | 883.30 | 463.30 |
| 38 | 12.70 | 896.00 | 476.00 |
| 39 | 12.32 | 908.32 | 488.32 |
| 40 | 11.95 | 920.27 | 500.27 |
Every model here assumes churn and margin hold steady, which no real cohort does. Treat the figure as a planning number for comparing scenarios rather than a forecast, and quote the model alongside it, because the same inputs produce visibly different answers depending on which one you pick. Nothing you type is sent anywhere.