R.I.P. Sangoma Being Acquired

[kenn10]

Here is some summary data of revenue. 90% from Star2Star. That would make it very easy to move customers on the other products to one product. At the high level of a single corporation, wouldn't you do that?

Roughly the large majority of revenue comes from Star2Star (now Sangoma’s primary UCaaS/cloud platform, also referred to as Business Voice+), while Switchvox + PBXact (plus related FreePBX licensing, phones, and servers) together account for less than 10%.


Sangoma (which acquired Digium in 2018 and Star2Star in 2021) does not publish a precise public breakdown of revenue by individual product line such as “X% Star2Star / Y% Switchvox / Z% PBXact.” Official reporting is limited to high-level categories:

• Services vs. Products: In fiscal 2026 (ended June 30, 2026), total revenue was ~$200 million, with services ~92% and products ~8%. Services are primarily recurring (UCaaS, MSP, etc.); products are mostly non-recurring (on-prem UC platforms and hardware).
• Core vs. Adjacent (from earlier commentary): Core services (SaaS-led communications platforms including UCaaS/CCaaS/CPaaS, premise PBX solutions, and bundles) have been described as ~75% of revenue, with adjacent (trunking, gateways, open-source-related, etc.) ~25%.

Star2Star (the cloud UCaaS platform acquired in 2021) drives the bulk of the high-margin recurring services revenue and the majority of the ~2.7 million UC seats. Switchvox and PBXact are the commercial on-premises/hybrid Asterisk/FreePBX-based offerings (from the Digium heritage); together with related hardware and FreePBX licensing, independent analysis puts them at under 10% of total revenue.


In short, Star2Star accounts for the large majority of revenue (especially the ~90%+ recurring portion), while Switchvox + PBXact are a small single-digit-to-low-double-digit share at most. Exact percentages for the three products alone are not disclosed in SEC/SEDAR filings or earnings materials.

 

[Samot]

Open-source only FreePBX is not revenue producing

There hasn't been an open-source only FreePBX since Schmooze took ownership in 2013 and merged commercial based modules into FreePBX. The FreePBX ISO was a commercial product and if you didn't install that, you didn't get support. Numerous open source modules have code added to them to support features within a commercial module. Voicemail is a clear case of an open source module having code in it to support a commercial module. Then, of course, you have the example of the open source Firewall module requiring the commercial Sysadmin module.

Being able to install, update, contribute to the OSO portions of FreePBX doesn't mean there's open-source only development at Sangoma. The FreePB roadmap is the FreePBX roadmap both open source and commercial.

As to Asterisk, there are other products based on it but I don't see a different profit model for it either;

Well like FreePBX they have a lot of support contracts and services. You can get your own release...there's all sorts of revenue streams that open source projects have.

Both projects have revenue streams from support contracts and other services.

 

[Samot]

Here is some summary data of revenue. 90% from Star2Star. That would make it very easy to move customers on the other products to one product. At the high level of a single corporation, wouldn't you do that?



View attachment 6563

Well that basically matches the breakdown of Services and Products in the fiscal report. The "& Services" part is doing a lot of heavy lifting. That's Netfortis, VI Communications, SIPStation, FAXStation, support contracts (including FreePBX/Asterisk), Switchvox subscriptions, annual module support renewals. It's basically anything with recurring revenue. They don't break it down.

Hardware and products are one time purchases. The initial one time payment for commercial modules is a "Product". Again they don't break it down.

Yeah, commercial modules are both products and services since there is both a one time payment and recurring support services. Just like you buy a Switchvox appliance but need a service subscription for support/updates. One is a Product and one is a Service.

 

[kenn10]

here hasn't been an open-source only FreePBX since Schmooze took ownership in 2013

You know exactly what I'm talking about so quit picking nits. Perhaps the term your would approve is unlicensed version of FreePBX. As I said, there are many, many systems out there that do not use the Zulu module and are not registered with Sangoma. Nor do the installations utilize (or support) commercial modules. Explain how that drives revenue?

Nonetheless, if you feel strongly for the success of Sangoma then go invest in a ton of Sangoma stock. No holding company anywhere buys a company to "help" it. They buy it to squeeze as much profit as possible and if unsuccessful, they close it or dump it on the market for resale.

 

[Samot]

As I said, there are many, many systems out there that do not use the Zulu module and are not registered with Sangoma. Nor do the installations utilize (or support) commercial modules. Explain how that drives revenue?

So basically you're focusing only those that only use the free parts of FreePBX. You're right those that only use the free parts of it aren't generating revenue. But then again, since those don't call home or register back with Sangoma, how are they going to count those installs? Guess?

Nonetheless, if you feel strongly for the success of Sangoma then go invest in a ton of Sangoma stock.

Oh that was expected.

No holding company anywhere buys a company to "help" it.

Then you don't understand what holding companies do and/or are conflating them with VC and PE. The next time you're in a Burger King or Taco Bell or Dunkin' Donuts think to yourself, "Their holding companies are doing nothing to help these places". You use companies on a daily basis that are completely owned by a holding company and have been for decades. Holding companies generally don't look to sell what they are holding. They also tend to buy mature companies with established revenue streams to they can get the most out of those streams which includes "helping it".

 

[kenn10]

You use companies on a daily basis that are completely owned by a holding company and have been for decades

And I said: They buy it to squeeze as much profit as possible

So long as they have a good revenue stream, sure they hold on. If an entity is not making enough profits, adjustments are made to the company. As I said, a holding company is there to make money. Period.

We're talking in circles from different viewpoints. Let's let the dead horse go and nature will take its course.