Domestic Women's Fashion Platform: Challenges and Opportunities

Approximately four years after writing the analysis report on the external contributors of 'Forest of Innovation' in September 2022 (Link), I have now provided a recent update.

Executive Summary

The domestic women's fashion platform market grew to approximately 5 trillion won in transaction volume by 2024, yet it faces structural headwinds: the offensive by Chinese C-commerce platforms and nine consecutive months of contraction in the online fashion market (-17.8%). Despite this, Ablee surpassed KRW 2.5 trillion and Zigzag exceeded KRW 2 trillion in transaction volume, establishing a two-stronghold market structure. Notably, Zigzag succeeded in turning a profit, achieving an operating income of KRW 2.2 billion for the first time in five years.

This content analyzes the valuation of these platforms from a PE investor's perspective based on an EV/GMV multiple of 1.5 to 2.0 times, calculates enterprise value under various scenarios, and proposes an M&A-focused exit strategy.

The core investment thesis converges on "a zigzag business model with proven potential for profitability transition" and "whether the economics of AI-based personalized recommendations can be secured."

1. Overview of the Domestic Women's Fashion Platform Market and Value Chain
2. Competitiveness of the Women's Fashion Platform Market · Main Players · Investment Status
3. Case Study Analysis of High-Growth Companies
4. Future Outlook and Challenges
5. Story Meets Valuation
6. Investment Decision-Making Framework and Implications for Investment Strategy (Hypothesis-Based Establishment)

1. Overview of the Domestic Women's Fashion Platform Market and Value Chain

1.1 Market Size and Growth Limitations

In 2024, the domestic fashion market reached 49.5544 trillion won, growing 2.3% year-on-year. However, this represents a continued slowdown from 5.8% growth in 2021, 4.1% in 2022, and 3.2% in 2023.

The more serious issue is that the online fashion and apparel sector recorded negative growth (-17.8%) for nine consecutive months from December 2023 to August 2024. The direct cause of this decline is the ultra-low-price offensive by Chinese C-commerce platforms, represented by AliExpress, Temu, and Shein. Cumulative payments from January to July 2024 alone reached 2.2938 trillion won, approaching the total transaction volume for all of 2023, while domestic users surpassed 16 million.

This structural shift signifies a fundamental reset of the price anchor,not merely intensified competition.
As mid-to-low-priced goods (averaging 20,000 to 50,000 won) on domestic platforms based on Dongdaemun wholesale prices lose competitiveness against direct imports from China, domestic platforms now face a strategic crossroads : "low price vs. curation and service differentiation."

1.2 Value Chain Analysis and Profitability Structure

The value chain of domestic women's fashion platforms consists of five stages, and the margin structure at each stage determines overall profitability.

Step 1: Product Sourcing (80%+ Dependence on Dongdaemun Ecosystem)
– Direct Sourcing from Dongdaemun Wholesale Market: Common Strategy for Brandi, Able, Zigzag
– Issues: Dongdaemun Vacancy Rate 40%, Weakening Bargaining Power for Purchase Prices
– Response: Expanding Seller Network (Able: 9,000 Sellers), Strengthening Private Brands (Zigzag)

Step 2: Fulfillment & Logistics (CAPEX Focus Area)
– Operating Own Centers: Brandi 4,200 pyeong, Able Partners
– Cost Analysis: Approx. KRW 2,500–3,000 per order at 5,000 daily orders
– ROI: Economies of scale achievable upon exceeding KRW 1 trillion in transaction volume

Step 3: Platform Technology (Core AI Differentiation)
– AI Personalized Recommendations: Ablee and Zigzag's core competitive advantage
– Technology Investment Scale: Ablee shifted to in-house development in 2020, estimated annual investment over 10 billion KRW
– Effect: Purchase conversion rate improved by 30~50% (Industry average 2.9~3.3% → Achieved 4~5%)

Stage 4: Marketing & Customer Acquisition (Largest Cost Factor)
– CAC (Customer Acquisition Cost) Improvement
→ TV Ads: Ablee·Brandy each spent over 5 billion KRW
→ Performance Marketing: 30~40% of sales
– LTV/CAC Ratio: Ablee estimated at 2.1x (Industry standard requires 3x+)

Stage 5: Payment & Fintech (Future Revenue Stream)
– Preparing proprietary payment solution: Able Pay under development
– Anticipated profitability improvement: Internalizing payment fees could add KRW 5-10 billion in annual profit

The key insight derived from this value chain analysisis that "preemptive investment in Stage 2 (logistics) and Stage 3 (AI) determines the efficiency of Stage 4 (marketing)." Zigzag's case, where it achieved a 30% increase in transaction volume by strengthening direct delivery, proves this point.

1.3 Dissecting the Financial Structure: The Dilemma of Take Rate and Profitability

The revenue model of domestic fashion platforms is primarily composed of: ① Commission fees, ② Fulfillment fees, and ③ Advertising fees. Analyzing Ablee's 2024 financial structure reveals that,

Item	Amount	specific gravity	Growth Rate (YoY)
Service Revenue (Brokerage + Advertising)	1,891억	56.5%	+42%
Product Sales (Fulfillment)	1,451억	43.5%	+15%
Total sales	3,343억	100%	+30%
Operating profit	-154억	–	Shift to deficit

Take Rate Reverse Calculation (Estimation)

• Transaction volume ₩2.5 trillion ÷ Service revenue ₩189.1 billion = Take Rate 7.6%
  – Lower than the industry average of 10–15% → Reflects competitive pressure
  
• Cost Structure (2024 Estimate)
  – Commission Expenses: Approx. 65% of Revenue → KRW 216.1 billion
  – Advertising Expenses: Approx. 41% of Revenue → KRW 136.1 billion
  – Total exceeds Revenue → Potential for duplicate counting or calculation based on GMV

The most notable indicator in this structure is the "shift to an operating loss."
The shift from a 3.2 billion won profit in 2023 to a 15.4 billion won loss in 2024,
stemmed from: ① Global expansion (Amoud) ② New business ventures (4910, Fintech) ③ Incentive payments (full 3.3 billion won),
but fundamentally demonstrates a "trade-off between growth and profitability."

Meanwhile, Zigzag successfully turned a profit in 2024, recording sales of 200.4 billion won and an operating profit of 2.2 billion won (operating profit margin of 1.1%).
It is expected to post a profit for the second consecutive year in 2025,
primarily due to: ① increased average order value through direct shipping, ② improved private brand margins, and ③ the influx of the 30-40 age group (high purchasing power).

---

2. Women's Fashion Platform Market Competitiveness · Main Players · Investment Status

2.1 Competitive Landscape and Market Segmentation

As of the end of 2024, the transaction volume rankings are as follows.

Ranking	Platform	Transaction amount	MAU	Enterprise Value (Recent)	Positioning
1	Able	2.5조	940만	1.2 trillion (2022)	MZ General Store
2	Zigzag	2.0조	700만	–	1020 Fashion
3	29CM	1.0조	176만	–	2539 Designer
4	Queen It	–	–	Estimated at 0.4 trillion	40s and 50s Life
5	Brandy	–	–	0.7 trillion (2022)	Fashion for your 30s

Market Concentration

• The top two companies' transaction volume of 4.5 trillion won = approximately 65-70% of the entire women's platform market 
• HHI (Herfindahl Index) estimate: 2,800–3,200 (oligopolistic market)

2.2 In-Depth Analysis by Player

□ Able: The Dilemma of Scale vs. Profitability

Year	Transaction amount	Sales	Operating profit	Note
2021	0.7조	935억	–	–
2022	1.3조	1,785억	–	–
2023	1.9조	2,572억	+32억	First profit
2024	2.5조	3,343억	-154억	Shift to deficit
First Half of 2025	–	–	surplus	rebound

Transaction Volume 3-Year CAGR:52.7% (2021→2024)
Revenue 3-Year CAGR:52.8%

Investment Attraction Details

• Series B (September 2020): 37 billion won, KDB Industrial Bank, etc.
• Series B Extension (May 2021): 62 billion won
• Pre-Series C (January 2022): 67 billion won,company valuation 1.2 trillion won
• Cumulative investment: 173 billion won

Growth Drivers Analysis

1. Embedding AI Personalized Recommendations
   • 2020: Transition to In-House Development for AWS Algorithms
   • Purchase conversion rate improvement of 30–50%
   • Annual investment scale: Estimated at 10 billion won+
2. Category Expansion (Fashion → General Store)
   • Food: +220% (2024)
   • Beauty: Key Growth Category
   • Seasonal risk mitigation effect
3. Global Expansion (Japan 'Amood')
   • 2024 Investment of 10 billion won+
   • MAU undisclosed, performance verification in progress

Issues

1. Marketing costs surge
   • Advertising expenses: 40.7% of sales
   • CAC payback period: Estimated 14–18 months (assuming LTV of 3.5 years)
2. Pressure on Take Rate Decline
   • 2024 Reverse-Calculated Take Rate: 7.6%
   • Difficulty raising prices due to discount competition from rivals
3. Concerns about capital impairment
   • Cumulative deficit expansion in 2024
   • Turned profitable in the first half of 2025, but sustainability needs to be verified.

Investor Perspective :

"Is Able a 'growth option' or a 'risk of failed profitability transition'?"
The current valuation of KRW 1.2 trillion (2022) is based on an EV/GMV ratio of 1.5x. However, considering ① the potential return to losses, ② the threat from C-commerce, and ③ the lack of proven global performance,a 30-40% discountis warranted.
However, the possibility of revaluation remains open if profitability is sustained through the first half of 2025.

□ Zigzag: The Textbook of Profitability Transformation

Year	Transaction amount	Sales	Operating profit	Operating Profit Margin
2023	1.65 trillion estimated	1,651억	-Estimated at 5 billion	-3.0%
2024	2.0조	2,004억	+22억	+1.1%
2025E	2.4조	2,400억	+100억	+4.2%

Key Success Factors

1. Enhanced Direct Shipping → Increased Average Order Value
   • April 2025: Weekdays → Expanded to 7 days a week
   • Direct Delivery Transaction Volume +30%
   • New buyers +40%
2. PB (Private Brand) Margin Improvement
   • Strengthening our own brand to improve profit margins by 5 to 10 percentage points
   • Over 20 online stores surpassing 10 billion won in sales
3. Inflow of the 30-40 age group (high purchasing power)
   • Expanding the target beyond the existing 10-20 age group
   • Approximately 1.5 times increase in average transaction value
4. Data-driven curation
   • Utilizing Kakao's Big Data Infrastructure
   • Improving Marketing Efficiency (Performance-Focused)

Financial Structure Analysis

• Take Rate Calculation: 200.4 billion ÷ 2.0 trillion =10.0%
• 2.4 percentage points higher than Able (7.6%) → Superior commission negotiation power

Estimated EBITDA

• Operating profit 2.2 billion won + Depreciation 6.0 billion won (estimated) =EBITDA 8.2 billion won
• EBITDA Margin: 3.4% (Ablee -4.6% vs Zigzag +3.4%)

Investor Perspective:
"Zigzag has reached the 'profitability model validation complete' stage"
Two consecutive years of profitability demonstrate the effectiveness of ① operational efficiency, ② data capabilities, and ③ category focus.
Applying an EV/EBITDA multiple of 10-12x yields an enterprise valueof KRW 82-98 billion. However, considering its growth premium (transaction volume CAGR >20%), a valuationof KRW 1.5-2.0 trillionis also justifiable.
Nevertheless, its high dependence on support from its parent company Kakao necessitates considerationof the risk of deteriorating cost structures if it operates independently.

□ 29CM: The Strategic Value of Musinsa's Subsidiary

Latest Performance

• Transaction Volume: 1.0 trillion won (2024)
• MAU: 1.76 million
• 3-year average transaction volume growth rate:60%

Differentiation Strategy

1. High-Sensitivity Designer Brand Curation
   • 2539 Female Target Clear
   • Brands exceeding 5 billion won in annual transaction volume increased 11-fold (compared to 2021)
2. Lifestyle and Beauty Expansion
   • Beauty category +65%
   • Expanding the proportion of non-fashion categories
3. Musinsa Synergy
   • Shared logistics and IT infrastructure
   • Expectations for 29CM's value increase upon Musinsa IPO (target enterprise value of 10 trillion won)

Investor Perspective:
"Contingent Value of Musinsa IPO"
29CM's standalone enterprise value is approximatelyKRW 1.5 trillionbased on an EV/GMV ratio of 1.5x. However,
if Musinsa's IPO succeeds, ① the women's division could be spun off into an independent entity and ② a separate valuation could be possible,
indicating significantupside optionality.

□ Queenit: M&A-Driven Growth Model

Investment Status

• Series B (2023): 36 billion won
• Investors: Kakao Ventures, ATNUM Investment
• SK Stoa Acquisition(December 2024): 110 billion won

Strategic Significance

1. Expansion of the 4050 Lifestyle Platform
   • T-Commerce + Mobile Integration
   • Securing offline channels
2. MAU 4위 (Based on fashion apps)
   • Overwhelming usage rate among the 40s and 50s generation
   • High repeat visit rate

Investor Perspective:
“Synergy Creation Model Through M&A”
Queenit's acquisition of SK Stoa is a prime exampleof the "Buy & Build" strategy.
Combining T-commerce customers (core target: women aged 40-50) with mobile app users
holds significant potentialfor maximizing cross-selling. However, improving SK Stoa's loss-making structure is a prerequisite.
(Corporate value estimated atKRW 300-400 billionpost-money, based ontotal invested capital of KRW 146 billion: Series B investment of KRW 36 billion + SK Stoa acquisition of KRW 110 billion)

---

3. Case Analysis of High-Growth Companies

3.1) Ablee: The Double-Edged Sword of AI and Category Expansion

◎ Economic Analysis of AI Personalized Recommendations

Abley's shift to in-house AI development on AWS in 2020 was driven by two goals: "cost reduction + accuracy improvement." The results were clear:

• Purchase conversion rate: 2.9% (industry average) → Achieved 4.5–5.0%
• Repurchase rate: 30% → 45% improvement
• CAC recovery period: Shortened from 18 months to 14 months

However, the cost of in-house development was also significant. Annual technology investments exceeding 10 billion won amounted to about 3% of sales, which ultimately raises the question: "Does the improvement in marketing efficiency through AI outweigh the cost of AI development?"

ROI Calculation (Estimated)

• AI investment cost: 10 billion won annually
• Marketing cost reduction: A 40% improvement in conversion rate could save approximately 150 to 200 billion won.
• Net Benefit:+50 to 100 billion won

However, competitors (ZigZag, 29CM) are also intensifying their AI investments, making the "sustainability of AI differentiation" crucial over the next 2-3 years.

◎ Category Expansion: Mitigating Seasonality vs. Diluting Identity

Able's 220% growth in its food category signifies a successful "supplement to fashion off-season sales (early summer and winter)."
This mitigatesthe chronicseasonal risk(20-30% decline in Q1 and Q3 transaction volume) inherent in existing fashion platforms.

However, there is also a trade-off:

1. Identity dilution
   • "Fashion platform or general mall?" Positioning confusion
   • Direct competition with Coupang and Naver is inevitable.
2. Declining Margin Rate
   • Food Take Rate: 3–5% (lower than fashion's 10–15%)
   • Increased logistics complexity (fresh, frozen, etc.)
3. Increase in marketing expenses
   • Need to build awareness for the new category
   • Key reasons for the shift to a deficit in 2024

Investor Perspective:
Category expansion is sharply divided into an "Upside Scenario" and a "Downside Scenario."
◎ Upside:Successful transition to a comprehensive mall → Achieves 5 trillion won+ in transaction volume → Applies EV/GMV ratio of 0.8x → 4 trillion won valuation
◎ Downside:Dilution of identity → Weakened competitiveness → Stagnant transaction volume → Declining valuation
Currently, this is an "unproven bet," and performance in 2025-2026 is expected to determine the direction.

◎ Global Expansion: The Reality of Japan's 'Amud'

Able invested over 10 billion won in its Japanese expansion in 2024. While Japan's fashion e-commerce market, valued at 27.98 trillion yen (approximately 258 trillion won) in 2024, is attractive, the reality is harsh.

Market entry barriers

1. Advantage of local competitors
   • ZOZOTOWN (Transaction volume: ¥580 billion, approximately KRW 5.4 trillion)
   • Rakuten Fashion
   • High entry barriers
2. Logistics and Customer Service Localization Costs
   • Japanese consumer service expectations are extremely high.
   • Need to address a 30-40% return rate
3. Cultural differences
   • K-Fashion Preference Exists, Yet Remains a Niche Market
   • It takes a long time to become mainstream.

Brandy's 'Pastel' reached the top 3 on the Japanese App Store but failed to sustain its performance afterward, demonstrating that "initial entry success ≠ long-term monetization."

Investor Perspective:
Global expansion can be viewed as a "Call Option," but it is deemed reasonable not to reflect this in the base case valuation of
.
(e.g., assuming a success probability of 20-30%, the Option Value is expected to be aroundKRW 50-100 billion)

3.2) Zigzag: The Blueprint for Profitability Transformation

◎ The Strategic Significance of Direct Delivery

Zigzag's expansion of its direct delivery service to seven days a week in April 2025 is not merely a service improvement.
It is a "customer lock-in strategy through logistics."

Effect Analysis

• Direct Delivery Transaction Volume: +30%
• New buyers: +40%
• Repurchase rate: Estimated improvement of approximately 10 percentage points

Cost Structure (Estimated)

• Direct shipping logistics fee: Approximately 3,500 KRW per item (+40% compared to standard shipping at 2,500 KRW)
• Incremental cost: Approximately 50 to 70 billion won per year
• Incremental transaction volume: 60 billion won+ (Revenue +6 billion won at a 10% take rate)
• Net Contribution Margin: -10 to +10 billion won(Break-even level)

In other words, direct shipping is a strategy of"sacrificing short-term profitability to secure medium-to-long-term competitiveness."
The key point, however, is that this investment was undertaken while maintaining profitability from 2024 to 2025.

◎ The Math of Improving Private Brand Margins

Zigzag's PB enhancement signifies a shift in its revenue structure from "commission income → product margins. "

Margin Comparison

Model	Margin Rate	Explanation
Commission	10–15%	Seller Fee
Fulfillment	20–25%	Logistics Agency
PB	40–50%	In-house designed products

ZigZag's strategy of nurturing 20 shopping malls that surpassed 10 billion won in sales involves maximizing margins through"private brand co-development"partnerships with these platforms.

Estimated Financial Impact (Estimated)

• PB proportion: Assumed to be 5–10% of total transaction volume (KRW 100–200 billion)
• Margin contribution: 400 to 800 billion won
• Contribution to operating profit: 50 to 100 billion won

This is the key factor that enabled the 2024 operating profit of 2.2 billion won.

◎ Securing the 30s and 40s Generation: Maximizing LTV

The influx of the 30-40 age group into Zigzag maximizes LTV, which is composed of "average transaction value × purchase frequency × retention period."

Estimated LTV by Generation

Generation	Average transaction value	Annual Purchase	Residual period	LTV
1020	30,000 won	8회	3년	720,000 won
3040	50,000 won	12회	5년	3 million won

Difference: 4.2 times

When the proportion of the 30-40 age group increases by 10%, the average LTV rises by approximately 40%. This booststhe LTV/CAC ratio from 2.1x to 2.9xwhile maintaining the same CAC.

Investor Perspective:
Zigzag's profitability turnaround is a textbook case of "maximizing operational efficiency."
①Direct Delivery ②PB ③3040 Customer Acquisition—these three elements align perfectly,
with each responsiblefor short-term, mid-term, and long-term profitability respectively.
However, given its high dependence on Kakao's parent company (for big data and marketing support), the possibility ofEBITDA margin declining from 3.4% to 1-2% upon independent operationmust be considered.

3.3) 29CM: A Strategic Asset in the Musinsa Ecosystem

29CM's three-year average transaction growth rate of 60% is the highest among women's fashion platforms.
This is largely due to its clear differentiation strategy of "high-sensitivity brand curation. "

Success Factors:

1. Target Clarity
   • 2539 women, monthly income 4 million won+
   • Prioritizing individuality and style over price
2. Brand Development Ecosystem
   • Brands surpassing 5 billion won in annual transaction volume increased 11-fold
   • Brand and Win-Win Structure
3. Utilizing Musinsa Infrastructure
   • Cost reduction through shared logistics, IT, and marketing
   • Utilizing Musinsa's 16 million member data

Investor Perspective:
29CM's standalone valuation is estimated at1.5–2.0 trillion won, but there is significant upside potential due to the possibility of a"spin-off of the women's division"during Musinsa's IPO (
).
Assuming 29CM contributes 20% to Musinsa's targeted 10 trillion won IPO valuation, it could be valued at2 trillion won.
However, if Musinsa's IPO is delayed due to market skepticism (overvaluation concerns), an independent growth strategy for 29CM becomes necessary.

---

4. Future Outlook and Challenges

4.1) Key Growth Drivers

□ Advancement of AI and Fashion Tech

The key keyword for the 2026 fashion market is "AI-driven agile operational innovation." Musinsa has improved the accuracy of detecting fashion items within images using the AWS YOLOS-Fashionpedia model, while Able and Zigzag are also advancing their own AI capabilities.

Key AI Application Areas

1. Demand Forecasting
   • Reduce inventory costs by 20-30% through inventory optimization
   • Refining Decision-Making for Dongdaemun Purchasing
2. Size Recommendations (Fit Tech)
   • Return rate 30–40% → reduced by half to 15–20%
   • Introduction of virtual fitting technologies such as 3DLOOK
3. Advanced Personalized Recommendations
   • Purchase conversion rate: 3.3% (industry average) → Achieved 5–6%
   • Increased ARPU Effect

Investment Scale (Estimated)

• Able: Annual revenue exceeding 10 billion won
• Musinsa: Annual sales exceeding 20 billion won
• Zigzag: Leveraging Kakao's infrastructure for relatively low costs

Investor Perspective:
AI investment is highly"defensive"in nature. In a scenario where all competitors are investing in AI, failing to invest means losing competitiveness. In other words, "AI investment = a necessary expense," and differentiation hinges on "how efficiently one invests."

□ Overseas Expansion: Japan vs. Southeast Asia

Japan's fashion e-commerce market is attractive at ¥27.98 trillion (₩258 trillion), but with an e-commerce penetration rate of 23%, it is already saturated.
In contrast, Southeast Asia has significant growth potential due to its "mobile-first + young population" characteristics.

Market Comparison

Market	Scale	EC conversion rate	Competition Intensity	Entry barriers
Japan	258 trillion won	23%	High	High
Southeast Asia	Approximately 100 trillion won	10–15%	Middle	Middle

Investor Perspective:
Overseas expansion requires a "Portfolio Approach." Concentrating solely on Japan carries significant risk; diversifying options by simultaneously entering Southeast Asia is preferable. However, both markets require localization costs (assumed at KRW 20-30 billion annually), making this feasible only for companies with positive EBITDA.

□ Category Expansion: General Store vs. Fashion-Focused

Ablee's shift to a general mall vs. Zigzag's focus on fashion is a classic example of a strategic trade-off.

Scenario Comparison:

Strategy	Advantages	Disadvantages	Suitable companies
General Store	TAM expansion, seasonal mitigation	Intensifying competition, diluted identity	Able
Fashion Focus	Clear differentiation, margin advantage	Growth limitations, seasonal risks	Zigzag, 29CM

Investor Perspective:
Transitioning to a general mall is "High Risk, High Return." Success could achieve transaction volume of 5 trillion won+, enabling a company valuation of 4-5 trillion won, but failure carries significant risk of value erosion.
Conversely, focusing on fashion is "Stable Growth," enabling stable profit generation at around 3 trillion won in transaction volume.
When making investment decisions, consider "Which strategy increases the likelihood of an exit?"
A general mall is advantageous for an IPO, while a fashion-focused strategy offers clear synergies in an M&A (sale to a large commerce company).

4.2) Structural Challenges

△ Deteriorating profitability and risk of unit economics collapse

Able's shift to a deficit in 2024 starkly illustrates the trade-off between growth and profitability.
The issue isn't simply the deficit, but whether unit economics are deteriorating.

Unit Economics Analysis (Estimated by Ablee)

• CAC (Customer Acquisition Cost): Approximately 8,000 to 10,000 won
• LTV (Customer Lifetime Value): Approximately 18,000 to 24,000 won
• LTV/CAC Ratio: 2.1 to 2.4 times

Abley falls short of the industry standard, which requires over three times the amount.
More concerning is the trend of "CAC rising while LTV stagnates."

Cause

1. Marketing costs surge
   • Competition with C-commerce drives up CPC/CPM
   • Execution of brand marketing, including TV commercials
2. Pressure on Take Rate Decline
   • Fee increases impossible due to discount competition
   • 2024 Reverse Take Rate 7.6% (lower than the industry average of 10–15%)
3. Repurchase rate stagnation
   • Diluting Fashion Loyalty Through Category Expansion
   • Ease of switching to competitors

Investor Perspective:
Without improving unit economics, you risk falling into a "value trap." When investing, closely monitor the following KPIs:
→ CAC Trend (Monthly)
→ Cohort-based LTV (2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 cohorts)
→ Take Rate (Quarterly)
→ Repurchase Rate (12-month basis)
If no improvement occurs from the second half of 2025 through 2026, the downside scenario (enterprise value 2.7 trillion → 1.5–2.0 trillion) could materialize.

△ C-Commerce Ultra-Low-Price Competition

The offensive by Chinese C-commerce platforms (Alibaba, Temu, Shein)poses a structural threat.
The cumulative payment amount of 2.2938 trillion won from January to July 2024 accounts for approximately 40-50% of the total transaction volume of all domestic women's fashion platforms.

Price Comparison

Item	Domestic platform	C-Commerce	Difference
Blouse	20,000 to 30,000 won	5,000 to 8,000 won	-60 to 70%
One Piece	40,000 to 60,000 won	10,000 to 20,000 won	-60%
Accessories	10,000 to 20,000 won	2,000–5,000 won	-70%

This price gap stems from the"Dongdaemun wholesale vs. direct purchases from Chinese factories"structure, and it is deemed impossible for domestic platforms to catch up.

Response Strategy

1. Differentiation: Fast delivery + Curation
   • Direct Delivery (Zigzag): Next-day delivery vs. C-commerce 7–14 days
   • AI Recommendations: Personalized Curation vs. C-Commerce Flooded Display
2. Quality Assurance
   • Domestic Inspection System
   • Easy Returns and Exchanges (High C-commerce Return Rate)
3. K-Fashion Identity
   • Korean Designer Brands Now Available
   • Leading Local Trends

Investor Perspective:
The C-commerce threat is an "Existential Risk." Investment is impossible without a clear counterstrategy.
Zigzag's direct delivery and PB strategy could serve as a benchmark, but whether this alone is sufficient will be determined in the next 2-3 years.
If C-commerce's market share expands from the current 40-50% to 60-70%, domestic platform transaction volume coulddecline by an average of -10 to -15% annually. In this scenario, the Bear Case could become the Base Case.

△ Shrinking Dongdaemun Ecosystem

The 40% vacancy rate in Dongdaemun Fashion Town signifiesthe weakening ofdomestic fashion platforms'product sourcing base.
As Dongdaemun wholesalers close down due to ① aging, ② lack of successors, and ③ loss of intermediary margins from direct deals with Chinese factories, platforms face pressure to"diversify sourcing."

Response Strategy

1. Overseas Direct Sourcing
   • Direct contracts with factories in China and Vietnam
   • Brandy and Able are currently in progress.
2. PB Enhancement
   • Reducing dependence on Dongdaemun through in-house planning and production
   • Zigzag Success Stories
3. Expanding Brand Partnerships
   • Bypass wholesale channels through direct entry of domestic and international brands
   • 29CM Strategy

Investor Perspective:
The contraction of Dongdaemunis a medium-to-long-term risk. If the Dongdaemun wholesale ecosystem shrinks to less than 50% of its current size within the next 5 to 7 years, platforms could facea 20-30% increase in sourcing costs.
This will pressure Take Rates and worsen profitability.
When investing, include "Dongdaemun dependency" as a key due diligence item, and apply a Risk Premium to companies with over 60% dependency.

---

Valuation of fashion platforms is insufficient when relying solely on traditional methodologies (DCF, EV/EBITDA).
Since EBITDA is often negative or minimal, a 3-Method Approach is necessary: usingEV/GMV Multipleas the Primary Method,EV/Revenueas the Secondary Method, and integratingScenario Analysis.

◎ EV/GMV Multiple Method (Ablee)

Benchmark Multiples (2024-2025 Market Data)

Category	EV/GMV Range	Source
General e-commerce	0.3 to 1.2 times	KPMG, PwC
Fashion platform	1.5 to 2.0 times	KPMG, PwC
Coupang (2022)	0.7배	Mirae Asset Securities
Poshmark (U.S. fashion resale)	1.2배	Mirae Asset Securities

Able Implied Multiple (2022):

• Enterprise value: 1.2 trillion won
• Estimated GMV: Approximately 800 billion won
• Implied Multiple: 1.5x

Multiple Adjustment Factors

factor	Impact	Adjustment
Growth Rate (GMV CAGR 30%+)	Positive	+0.2 to 0.3 times
Profitability (EBITDA margin 3%+)	Positive	+0.2 to 0.3 times
Intensifying Competition (C-Commerce)	Negative	-0.3 to 0.5 times
Market Concentration (HHI 3,000+)	Neutral	0배
Scale (GMV over 2 trillion won)	Positive	+0.1 to 0.2 times

Applicable

• Base Case: 1.4x (reflecting growth slowdown and intensifying competition)
• Bull Case: 1.7x (Growth re-acceleration, Overseas success)
• Bear Case: 1.0x (Intensifying competition, shrinking market)

◎ EV/Revenue Multiple Method

Benchmark Multiples

corporation	EV/Revenue	Note
PayPal/Block Average (2024-25F)	3.6 to 3.8 times	Mirae Asset Securities
Able Implied (2022)	6.7배	1.2 trillion ÷ 178.5 billion
Poshmark	4.6배	Mirae Asset Securities
Domestic e-commerce	1.5 to 2.5 times	Discount applied

Investor Perspective:
EV/Revenueis more volatilethan EV/GMV (sensitive to changes in Take Rate).
Therefore, it is usedfor cross-checking purposesrather than as a primary metric.

◎ EV/EBITDA Multiple Method (Profit-making companies only: Zigzag)

Benchmark Multiples (Q1 2025):

Category	EV/EBITDA	Source
Fashion Brands	9.9배	Lincoln International
Active Lifestyle	10.6배	Lincoln International
Fast Fashion Retail	16.1배	Lincoln International

Zigzag application

• 2024 EBITDA: Approximately 8.2 billion won (Estimated operating profit 2.2 billion won + Depreciation and Amortization 6.0 billion won)
• EV/EBITDA at 10x:82 billion won
• Growth premium +30~50%:1.06~1.23 trillion won

Issues

Zigzag's EV/EBITDA valuation (1.2 trillion won) relative to its 2 trillion won transaction volume is only 40% of its EV/GMV valuation (3 trillion won) based on a 1.5x multiple, indicatinga significant gap. This suggests either EBITDA is undervalued or the GMV benchmark is overvalued.

Investor Perspective:
When EBITDA is below KRW 10 billion, EV/EBITDA should only be used asa reference metric, and it is reasonable to adopt EV/GMV (
) as the primary valuation metric.

5.2) Ablee Scenario-Based Valuation

◎ Base Case: Current trend continues (Probability 50%)

Household (as of the end of 2026)

• GMV: 3.1 trillion won (YoY +24%, growth rate slowing)
• Sales: 405 billion won (YoY +21%)
• EBITDA: 8 billion won (2% margin rate, continued investment in new businesses)
• EV/GMV Multiple: 1.4x

Valuation

• EV/GMV Method: 3.1 trillion × 1.4 =4.34 trillion won
• EV/Revenue Method: 405 billion × 2.0 = 810 billion won
• Blended (70:30 Weight):3.47 trillion won

◎ Bull Case: Growth Reacceleration (Probability 25%)

Home

• GMV: 3.5 trillion won (YoY +40%, successful overseas expansion)
• Sales: 460 billion won (YoY +38%)
• EBITDA: 18 billion won (margin rate 3.9%, profitability improvement)
• EV/GMV Multiple: 1.7x

Valuation

• EV/GMV Method: 3.5 trillion × 1.7 =5.95 trillion won
• EV/EBITDA Method: 18 billion × 12 = 2.16 trillion won
• Blended (80:20 Weight):5.19 trillion won

Trigger Conditions

1. Japan's 'Amood' Surpasses 1 Million Monthly Active Users+ Transaction Volume Reaches 200 Billion Won
2. Food category transaction volume reaches 500 billion won(+150% year-over-year)
3. Achieved a 6% purchase conversion rate through improved AI recommendation accuracy
4. Recovering Market Share Amid Strengthened C-Commerce Regulations

◎ Bear Case: Intensifying Competition and Market Contraction (Probability 25%)

Home

• GMV: 2.7 trillion won (YoY +8%, C-commerce encroachment)
• Sales: 370 billion won (YoY +11%)
• EBITDA: -5 billion won (margin rate -1.4%, competitive response costs)
• EV/GMV Multiple: 1.0x

Valuation

• EV/GMV Method: 2.7 trillion × 1.0 =2.7 trillion won
• EV/Revenue Method: 370 billion × 1.5 = 555 billion won
• Blended (70:30 Weight):2.56 trillion won

Trigger Conditions

1. C-Commerce Market Share Surpasses 60%(Current: 40-50%)
2. Vacancy rate in Dongdaemun exceeds 60%(currently 40%)
3. Marketing expenses increased by 50%(in response to competition)
4. Repurchase rate down 10 percentage points

◎ Ablee, Probability-Weighted Valuation

Expected Value

EV = (5.19 trillion × 0.25) + (3.47 trillion × 0.50) + (2.56 trillion × 0.25)
= 1.30 trillion + 1.74 trillion + 0.64 trillion
=3.68 trillion won

Private Discount Applied

• Illiquidity Discount: -20 to 30%
• Fair Value Range: 2.58–2.94 trillion won

Investor Perspective:
Able's fair enterprise valueis KRW 2.6–2.9 trillion,representing a 2.2–2.4x increasecompared to its KRW 1.2 trillion Pre-Series C valuation in 2022.
However, this reflects: ① 3.6x growth in transaction volume and ② achieving 9.4 million MAU.
The valuation increase relative to growth remains limited.
If Abley demandsa pre-money valuation of 3.5–4.0 trillion wonin additional funding, this would be based on assumptions closer to a Bull Case. Therefore, when making investment decisions, strengthening downside protection (such as preferred shares and ratchet clauses) is advisable.

5.3) Zigzag Scenario-Based Valuation

◎ Base Case (Probability 50%)

Home

• GMV: 2.4 trillion won (YoY +20%)
• Sales: 240 billion won (YoY +20%)
• EBITDA: 10 billion won (margin rate 4.2%)
• EV/GMV Multiple: 1.2x

Valuation

• EV/GMV Method: 2.4 trillion × 1.2 =2.88 trillion won
• EV/EBITDA Method: 10 billion × 10 = 1.0 trillion won
• Blended (60:40 Weight):2.13 trillion won

◎ Bull Case (Probability 30%)

Home

• GMV: 2.7 trillion won (YoY +35%)
• Sales: 270 billion won
• EBITDA: 16 billion won (margin rate 5.9%)
• EV/GMV Multiple: 1.5x

Valuation

• EV/GMV Method: 2.7 trillion × 1.5 =4.05 trillion won
• EV/EBITDA Method: 16 billion × 12 = 1.92 trillion won
• Blended (65:35):3.30 trillion won

Trigger:PB proportion reaches 15%, 3040 proportion exceeds 40%

◎ Bear Case (Probability 20%)

Home

• GMV: 2.1 trillion won (YoY +5%)
• EBITDA: 5 billion won (margin rate 2.1%)
• EV/GMV: 0.9x

Valuation: 1.89 trillion won

Trigger:Kakao's reduced support, intensifying competition

◎ Zigzag, Expected Value

EV = (3.30 trillion × 0.30) + (2.13 trillion × 0.50) + (1.89 trillion × 0.20)
= 0.99 trillion + 1.07 trillion + 0.38 trillion
=2.44 trillion won

Fair Value Range: 2.2–2.7 trillion won

Investor Perspective:
Zigzaghas a low risk premium due to its proven profitability transition.
Compared to Able, ① its lower growth rate and ② its smaller scale,the reason for its small value gapis "profitability credibility."
If Kakao considers a sale, a PE/SI acquisition at a price of2.5 to 3.0 trillion wonis possible.

---

6. Investment Decision-Making Framework and Implications for Investment Strategy (Hypothesis-Based Establishment)

◎ Investment Criteria

Essential Requirements (Must-Have)

1. GMV over 1 trillion won
   • Reason: Economies of scale, Exit potential
2. Unit Economics Validation
   • LTV/CAC Ratio ≥ 2.5 times, Payback Period ≤ 15 months
3. Differentiated Competitiveness
   • At least one of the following: AI technology, logistics infrastructure, brand curation

Nice-to-Have

1. Profitability Transformation Experience
   • At least one quarter of operating profit in the black
2. Monthly Active Users (MAU) over 5 million
   • Customer base acquisition
3. Take Rate 8% or higher
   • Profitability potential

◎ Deal Structure Design

Investment Amount:300 to 500 billion won (Minority stake of 15 to 25%)

Investment Structure

• RCPS (Redeemable Convertible Preferred Stock)
• Liquidation Preference: 1.5–2.0X (Non-Participating)
• Anti-Dilution: Full Ratchet (Down Round)
• Put Option: Exercisable in 5 years

Valuation Cap

• 80–90% of the Base Case value (e.g., Able Base 3.5 trillion → Cap 2.8–3.2 trillion)

Board Seat

• One seat secured (Finance and Strategy Division)

Key Milestones (Exit Trigger)

• Achieved GMV of 5 trillion won → Pursuing IPO
• Achieve 5% EBITDA margin → Strategic M&A
• Achieved 15 million MAU → Secured market dominance

◎ Due Diligence Focus Areas

Financial Due Diligence

1. GMV Verification
   • Whether to calculate the regular price for discounted sales
   • Inclusion of PB sales brokerage transaction amounts
   • Verification Method:Review payment data raw data, cross-check with payment gateway provider
2. Unit Economics
   • Cohort Analysis (LTV by Cohort for 2021–2024)
   • CAC Breakdown (by Channel: TV, Performance, Brand)
   • Red Flag:CAC rising over 30% annually, LTV stagnating
3. Take Rate Trend
   • Quarterly Trends
   • Red Flag:Decline of 0.5 percentage points or more per quarter

Operational Audit

1. Logistics infrastructure
   • Fulfillment Center Utilization Rate (70% or higher required)
   • Per-order logistics cost (Target: 3,000 KRW or less)
2. AI technology
   • In-house development vs Outsourcing
   • Recommendation Accuracy (CTR, CVR Improvement Effect)
3. Dongdaemun Dependency
   • Risk Flag when sourcing proportion exceeds 60%
   • Alternative Sourcing Strategy Validation

Legal Due Diligence

• Intellectual Property Dispute
• Labor Issues (Distribution Center)
• Compliance with the Personal Information Protection Act

◎ Exit Strategy 1: IPO (Target: 2027–2028)

Condition

• GMV over 5 trillion won
• EBITDA over 50 billion won (margin 5%+)
• Two consecutive years of profitability

Expected Enterprise Value

• Musinsa IPO Targets 10 Trillion Won Benchmark
• Leading Women's Platform:6–8 Trillion Won

Issues

• Delay in Musinsa IPO Could Lead to Decline in Market Confidence
• Potential for overvaluation controversy

Exit Return

• Investment valuation: 3 trillion won → IPO valuation: 7 trillion won
• 2.3x MOIC(5-year IRR of 15–20%)

◎ Exit Strategy 2: Strategic M&A (Naver/Kakao)

Condition

• GMV over 3 trillion won
• EBITDA turns profitable
• MAU over 8 million

Expected acquisition

• Naver:Filling the gap in the women's fashion sector → 4 to 5 trillion won
• Kakao:Zigzag Synergy → 3 to 4 trillion won
• Coupang/SSG:Category expansion → 2.5–3.5 trillion won

Negotiation Points

• Earn-out Clause (Performance-Based Additional Payment)
• Founder Lock-up Period: 2–3 years
• Employee Retention Bonus

Exit Return

• Investment value at time of investment: 3 trillion won → M&A value: 4.5 trillion won
• 1.5x MOIC(3-year IRR of 10–15%)

◎ Exit Strategy 3: PE Secondary Sale

Condition

• 3 to 4 years after the initial PE investment
• Sale of equity to the next round of investors

Estimated Price

• A 20-30% premium if growth continues
• 10-15% discount during off-peak hours

Exit Return

• 1.2–1.5x MOIC(4-year IRR of 5–11%)

Investor Perspective:
The most realistic exitis strategic M&A. Both Naver and Kakao recognize the need to strengthen their women's fashion offerings. For companies at the level of Ablee and Zigzag (
), the judgment that"Buy is more efficient than Build"is highly likely. It is reasonable to set IPO (
)as the upside scenarioand M&Aas the base scenario.