Trusted Business Valuation Credentials in the United States

Business Valuation Standards in the United States are more alike than different, particularly NACVA’s Professional Standards and Ethics and the AICPA’s Statement on Standards for Valuation Services (SSVS No. 1 / VS Section 100). Both frameworks are designed to ensure competence, independence, clear scope definition, proper valuation development, and adequate reporting. Both also distinguish between a full valuation engagement and a more limited calculation engagement. In practice, a well-prepared valuation under either standard should be rigorous, defensible, and credible.

The main difference is structural and stylistic. NACVA organizes its standards into Professional, Development, and Reporting Standards and updates them more frequently. The current NACVA standards became effective June 1, 2023, following earlier revisions in 2011, 2015, and 2017. By contrast, the AICPA’s SSVS was issued in 2007 and became effective for engagements on or after January 1, 2008. SSVS is a single consolidated standard rather than a multi-part framework. The ABV is not a separate standard; it is the AICPA’s valuation credential, and ABV holders are expected to follow SSVS and the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct.

The ASA framework is slightly different. ASA credential holders in business valuation are generally associated with USPAP-based appraisal practice, together with ASA’s own discipline-specific guidance. USPAP — the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice — is broader than business valuation. It was first developed in the late 1980s, was recognized by Congress in 1989 for certain appraisal contexts, and is maintained by The Appraisal Foundation. USPAP applies across multiple appraisal disciplines, including real estate, personal property, and business valuation. In business valuation, the most relevant sections are Standards 9 and 10, which govern development and reporting.

USPAP is not “better” than NACVA or SSVS, but it is often viewed as more detailed in certain areas of reporting and documentation. For example, USPAP is more explicit about maintaining a workfile, identifying the source of the definition of value, using a formal certification, and providing a structured explanation of the scope of work and report contents. At Gato Consulting, I follow NACVA standards. Still, I also voluntarily adhere to these USPAP requirements in all Valuations with a Conclusion of Value with a Detailed report, including: retaining a workfile for at least five years; clearly identifying the intended use and intended users; considering all three valuation approaches (Income, Market, and Asset) and explaining why an approach is not used when applicable; reconciling indications of value; disclosing scope limitations; using robust reporting content; and certifying my work through formal representations. These practices are also consistent with NACVA’s reporting and professional standards.

For most readers, the practical takeaway is simple: NACVA, AICPA/SSVS, ASA, and USPAP all seek the same result — competent, independent, well-documented valuation work. The differences lie mostly in organization, emphasis, and level of detail. NACVA tends to be more structurally explicit and updated more frequently. AICPA/SSVS is highly respected and closely aligned in substance. ASA practitioners often bring the added discipline of USPAP, which can be especially useful in litigation and appraisal-heavy settings. In real-world business valuation work, what matters most is not merely which standards are cited, but whether the valuator actually applies them with rigor, judgment, and the expectation that the work may be reviewed by the IRS, opposing counsel, a judge, a lender, or a board of directors.

 Here is a detailed comparison between these Standards.