There is no direct advice in the books
So we have to derive it from other parts of D&D.
A combat is 3 rounds
Now this isn't actually true; combats are often longer. But the impact of damage-later is usually less than damage-earlier; by taking the average over 3 rounds of combat, you get a good approximation of how much a "feature" is worth.
To back this up, this is how the DMG advises you balance monster damage.
Action value scales with level
For a given action, a character can either use an at-will resource, or burn a non-at-will resource.
Spellcasters at-will resource is typically a cantrip; in some cases, it is a weapon attack. If you do a comparison of the two, they tend to (very roughly) scale with character level.
When you have an concentration spell that requires burning an action each round, the value the spell provides is the difference between the spell's action value and the at-will value you could have gotten without spending any spell slots.
Using Firebolt as our baseline, this is 1d10 damage per tier (miss for nothing); compared to normal spells, this is 4.5 levels 1-4 (1st - 2nd level spells), 9 levels 5-10 (3rd-5th level spells), 13.5 levels 11-16 (6th-8th level spells), and 18 levels 17+ (9th level spells).
This will underestimate the value of the action. Because by level 17, you have enough low level spells that the actual comparison is either using your action on your concentration spell, or casting a low level spell (of which you have plenty). But at least it doesn't discount it completely.
But first, let's ignore the multi-target and subtract that "baseline damage".
Spell Level |
One Target |
1st |
6.5 + 4.5 |
2nd |
12 + 4.5 |
3rd |
18.5 + 9 |
4th |
24 + 9 |
5th |
35 + 9 |
6th |
41.5 + 13.5 |
7th |
47 + 13.5 |
8th |
52.5 + 13.5 |
9th |
64.5 + 18 |
We then spread it over 3 rounds.
Spell Level |
One Target |
Per Round Damage |
1st |
6.5 + 4.5 |
6.7 = 2.2 + 4.5 |
2nd |
12 + 4.5 |
8.5 = 3 + 4.5 |
3rd |
18.5 + 9 |
15.2 = 6.2 + 9 |
4th |
24 + 9 |
17 = 8 + 9 |
5th |
35 + 9 |
20.7 = 11.7 + 9 |
6th |
41.5 + 13.5 |
27.3 = 13.8 + 13.5 |
7th |
47 + 13.5 |
29.2 = 15.7 + 13.5 |
8th |
52.5 + 13.5 |
31 = 17.5 + 13.5 |
9th |
64.5 + 18 |
39.8 = 21.8 + 18 |
Multiple target damage is very similar to single target damage if you assume the spell hits 1.5 foes; or, rather, assume it hits 2 foes on average, and damage on the 2nd foe is worth half as much as damage on the primary target. (The ratio varies)
If you treat moonbeam this way (and you should), its equivalent single-target damage is 16.5. This is closer to a 3rd level spell.
Concentration is another resource that these spell use. We could simply give concentration spells a 1 level bump; a 3 round 3rd level spell should do 15 damage per round, and moonbeam is pretty close to that.
For spells that don't use your action to repeat their damage, we don't get the boost from the damage you forgo from your action.
We can neglect the cost of the bonus action per round to keep things simple (most spells should have that cost).
Let's double check.
Test with actual spells.
Mordenkainen’s Sword is considered an awful spell. It does 3d10 damage, 0 on a miss, and requires concentration and a single action to cast. So its damage budget over 3 rounds is 64.5 + 18 / 3 or 27.8 × 1.25 = 34.8 damage per round. Instead it does 16.5. So Mordenkainen's Sword evaluates as really bad.
Sunbeam is considered a good spell. It is 6th level, does 6d8 (27) and blinded to multiple targets, is concentration, requires an action per turn, and does half damage on a successful save.
As multiple target spell, that is 40.5 single-target equivalent damage. My table above says a concentration action-per-round spell 6th level spell should do 29.2 single-target equivalent damage. So sunbeam is above par.
Summon Fiend is a recent 6th level spell. It does 3 attacks of ~16 damage per attack, 0 on a miss. It requires an action when you cast it. As a 6th level concentration spell, it has a single target 3 round with 0 damage on a miss damage budget of 36.5; it actually deals 48. Which makes it an above par spell.
Storm Sphere is a 4th level concentration spell. It does an initial 2d6 AOE damage (0 on a miss), then you can use a bonus action to deal 4d6 each turn on one target (0 on a miss, advantage first turn). (Foes could choose to stand in the storm and boost these values; I assume they won't.)
A 4th level 0 on a miss single target damage budget is 67.5. Storm Sphere does 7 × 1.5 = 10.5 initial, plus 54 over 3 rounds, for a total of 64. Pretty close.
Spirit Guardians is a 3rd level concentration spell that requires 1 action to deal damage. It does 3d8 multi-target damage with a save for half. So its single-target-equivalent damage budget is 60.75. Its one-target damage budget is 44, which makes it an above-par spell.
Probably more work needs to be done, but the general idea of "actions have value", "slots have value", "measure damage over 3 rounds" and "concentration has value (and risk)" I used above should give you a good ballpark to start in. And when looking at existing spells, really good ones tend to be at the top end of the range, and poor ones well under it.
Where the Rubber meets the Road
Note that the budget I assigned to "value of an action" is going to be rather low for any game with a 5 minute adventuring day. The spellcaster isn't likely to ever use cantrips, so cantrips are not the cost of the action.
If you expect 3 rounds per fight that "matter" over 8 fights per day, that is 24 rounds. A 11th level wizard has 16 spell slots and arcane recovery for another 1 or 2 slots. They cannot cast a different leveled spell every round of combat; so they may want a concentration spell that more efficiently uses their action than a cantrip.
The same wizard with 1 fight with 6 rounds that "matter" will want to use every round that matters in casting a spell with a level; 1 6th, 2 5th and 3 4th level slots. The opportunity cost for the action using a concentration spell repeatedly is higher for this wizard.
As you are working on spells for your home game, you should take into account (a) you don't want to write a spell that nobody will use, and (b) if you have 5 minute adventuring days, you should have a higher opportunity cost for using an action to fuel a spell.