Implied cross check
DCFBacking the growth rate out of an exit multiple, or the multiple out of a growth rate, to test whether either is defensible.
The two terminal value methods should agree, and forcing them to talk to each other is the fastest sanity check in the whole model. Take the exit multiple you would otherwise have used and solve for the growth rate it implies at your WACC.
If that implied growth is above nominal GDP, the multiple is too high whatever the comps say. If it is deeply negative, the multiple is too low, or the final year earnings are not representative.
It works in the other direction too. A perpetuity growth assumption implies an exit multiple, and if that multiple is far from where the sector trades, the growth rate needs defending rather than the multiple.
This is why the two methods are always run together. Neither is more correct; the value is in the disagreement, which points precisely at whichever assumption is doing too much work.
Worked example
You have assumed 2.5% terminal growth at a 9% WACC, giving a terminal value of 946 on 150 of final year EBITDA, so 6.3x.
Sector comps trade at 9.0x. Your DCF is implicitly saying this business deserves a third less than its peers in perpetuity.
Either that is a deliberate view worth stating, or the growth rate is too conservative. Running the check turns a buried assumption into a question you can answer.