Applying, say, 10 times final-year ebitda is more intuitive than a perpetuity formula and anchors the answer to observable market pricing. It also imports today's multiple environment into a forecast a decade out, which may not hold.
Best practice is to run both methods and check they agree. If the perpetuity approach implies a 19 times exit multiple, either the growth assumption or the multiple assumption is wrong.
Example: Northwind Tools at 10 times year-five EBITDA of $246M gives a $2.46B terminal value, above the $2.03B from the perpetuity method, which implies an 8.3 times exit multiple.
Related: terminal-value, perpetuity-growth-rate, ev-ebitda, comparable-company-analysis, discounted-cash-flow