Skip to main content
← TAM, SAM, SOMLibraryLog inSign up free
← TAM, SAM, SOM (full guide)
Spoke · 6 examples · 8 min read

TAM SAM SOM examples — 6 worked cases

Six worked TAM/SAM/SOM calculations across different startup categories. Real numbers, real reasoning, and the pattern each one demonstrates.

Short answer

What does a worked TAM SAM SOM calculation look like?

Six of them, with realistic numbers and the reasoning shown. The useful part is where top-down and bottom-up disagree, because that gap is where the hidden assumption is sitting.

The short version
  1. Composites: the companies are fictional, but the maths, the ranges and the reasoning are what turns up in real sessions
  2. Top-down inflates because industry reports include adjacent revenue you cannot reach. Bottom-up underestimates because it misses expansion
  3. Realistic five-year capture: 1 to 3% in a competitive market, 5 to 15% in a vertical with weak incumbents
  4. Anything above 15% in five years needs an explanation rather than an assumption
  5. If the two methods disagree by more than about five times, one of them is carrying an assumption that is wrong

Example 1

B2B SaaS — accounting tool for SMBs

TAM$3.2B33M US SMBs × 8% (service-based) × $1.2K ARPU
SAM$1.1B35% reachable via SEO + paid
SOM$11M1% capture in 5 years

Realistic and venture-friendly. SOM gives a clear funnel target. Strong B2B SaaS profile.

Pattern:Standard B2B SaaS — narrow ICP, defensible 1% share.

Example 2

Consumer app — fitness subscription

TAM$4B5.5B smartphone users × 2% (niche audience) × $36 ARPU
SAM$600M15% realistic ad reach
SOM$3M0.5% capture

Consumer is hard. Low ARPU + high churn = small SOM despite huge TAM. Marginal venture case unless network effects unlock 5x bigger SOM.

Pattern:Consumer subscription — TAM looks great, SOM tells the truth.

Example 3

Vertical SaaS — practice management for dentists

TAM$1.2B200K US dentists × 100% (all in ICP) × $6K ARPU
SAM$720M60% reachable via dental conferences + trade pubs
SOM$36M5% capture (vertical SaaS realistic)

Smallest TAM, largest SOM. Narrow markets often beat broad ones — narrow = defensible.

Pattern:Vertical SaaS — small TAM, deep ARPU, high realistic capture.

Example 4

Two-sided marketplace — freelance designer platform

TAM$15BGlobal freelance design spend
SAM$4BEnglish-speaking + 5 supported languages
SOM$40M1% take rate × $4B GMV

Marketplace TAM is GMV (gross merchandise value). SOM here is take rate × GMV captured. Investors look at GMV growth + take rate separately.

Pattern:Marketplace — model TAM as GMV, SOM as take rate. Different math than SaaS.

Example 5

Hardware — IoT plant monitor

TAM$200M4M amateur gardeners × $50 device
SAM$40MUS English-speaking, willing to spend $50+
SOM$2M5% capture in 5 years

Hardware unit economics are brutal — $40 BOM + 35% retail margin = $14/unit profit. Need 140K units for $2M revenue.

Pattern:Hardware — small TAM relative to effort, slim margins. Usually NO-GO unless capital is plentiful.

Example 6

Enterprise SaaS — security ops for Fortune 5000

TAM$500M5K Fortune-class companies × $100K ACV
SAM$300MUS + EU enterprise reachable via direct sales
SOM$30M10% capture (vertical with budget urgency)

Enterprise sales = long cycle, big ACV. SOM small in customer count (300 customers) but big in revenue. Different funnel than SMB SaaS.

Pattern:Enterprise — count customers in hundreds, ACV in 6 figures, SOM in tens of millions.

Calculate your own TAM/SAM/SOM

Try our free interactive calculator with these example presets — or input your own numbers. Pick a vertical preset and see how SOM math actually works for your category.

Frequently asked questions

Are these examples real companies?+
They're composites — patterns we've seen across hundreds of validation sessions, with realistic numbers. The companies are fictional but the math, ranges, and reasoning reflect real markets. We deliberately included examples where SOM is small (vertical SaaS for dentists) to show that small SOM can still be a great business.
Why do top-down and bottom-up sometimes disagree?+
Different starting assumptions. Top-down inflates because industry reports include adjacent revenue you can't access. Bottom-up underestimates because it misses expansion revenue and adjacent segments. If they disagree by more than 5x, one of your assumptions is wrong — find which one.
How honest are the realistic-share assumptions?+
For early-stage venture-scale: 1–3% capture is realistic in 5 years for a competitive market, 5–15% for a vertical with weak incumbents. Anything above 15% in 5 years is aggressive — possible but you need a defensible reason (network effects, regulatory moat, distribution lock-in). The examples below stay within these bounds.

More on this topic