Abra Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026
- Investment
- $264K – $4.6M
- Disclosed sales
- not disclosed
- SBA charge-off
- Under 10 loans (1)
Data from FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records
Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology
Abra is a collision repair and auto body franchise handling dent repair, painting, and insurance-based restoration. Franchisees run the body shops, managing technicians, insurer relationships, and repair workflow.
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026
A Abra franchise requires a total initial investment of $264K – $4.6M, including a $35K franchise fee and an ongoing 5.0% royalty[2]. This franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that. FranchiseVerdict grade: B (Above average), an editorial assessment, not investment advice. Run a live ROI scan →
Sources, dates and evidence
FDD issued: · Data extracted: · Last cited check: · Staleness risk: medium - issued 12 to 24 months ago; a newer filing is likely on file
Evidence: strong✓ Investment (Item 7)✓ Item 19 status✓ Units and owners (Item 20)✗ SBA loan coverage✓ Litigation (Item 3)✓ Financial statements (Item 21)✓ Franchisor identityhow this is scored5 of 5 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing.
Overview
- Investment
- $264K – $4.6M
- 37th pct Automotive
- Avg gross sales
- N/A
- Royalty
- 5.0%
- 10th pct Automotive
- Units
- 55
- 22nd pct Automotive
- SBA charge-off
- N/A
Quick verdict · Automotive · color = vs category peers
Green = favorable by >10% vs Automotive median · No shading = within ±10% · Red = unfavorable by >10% · Source: FDD filings + SBA 7(a)
Data from public FDD filings and SBA records. Not financial advice. Methodology
Bottom line
- COSTTotal investment $264K – $4.6M including a $35K franchise fee, 5.0% ongoing royalty.
- RETURNSThis franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that.
- RISKVerdict B (Above average), verdict score 59/100 (higher is better).
- GROWTHNegative: net -2 franchised outlets in the latest year (0 opened, 2 closed) (Item 20).
- LEGAL10 litigation matters disclosed in Item 3, higher than typical. Of these, 0 name the franchisor itself, 6 its parent, affiliates or predecessor, 4 an officer personally. Pending claims are allegations, not findings.
Item 1 · who you're contracting with
The Franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- ABRA Franchisor SPV LLC
- Parent company
- Driven Systems LLC
- FDD Item 1, page 6 of the 2025 FDD
- Ultimate parent
- Driven Brands Holdings Inc.
- FDD Item 1, page 7 of the 2025 FDD
- Predecessor
- ABRA Automotive Systems LP
- Prior franchisor entity
- CEO title
- Chief Executive Officer
- Daniel Rivera
- Incorporated in
- Delaware
- HQ
- 440 South Church Street, Suite 700, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
- Auditor
- PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
- Audited financials
- Franchisor revenue
- $270.2M
- vs $289.7M prior year
Affiliated brands
- Spire Supply
- Driven Brands Shared Services
- Driven Product Sourcing
Other brands the franchisor or its parent operates (Item 1).
Same owner · FDD Item 1, page 7
6 other brands on this site name Driven Brands Holdings Inc. as parent or ultimate parent in their own FDD.
Portfolio: Driven Brands
Grouped by the owner's name as each filing prints it (this page: the 2025 FDD). Spelling variants of the same group may be listed apart; a brand is never grouped with an owner its filing does not name.
Overview
About
- CEO
- Daniel Rivera
- Headquarters
- NC
- Founded
- 2019
- FDD year
- 2025
- States available
- 16
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost runs 557% above the typical automotive franchise.
Source: FDD 2025 · Items 5–7
FDD Item 7 · 2025 filing
Initial investment breakdown
| Cost component | Low | High |
|---|---|---|
| Initial franchise fee | $35K | $35K |
| Working capital (3–6 mo) | $45K | $75K |
| Equipment, build-out, other | $184K | $4.5M |
| Total initial investment | $264K | $4.6M |
Source: Abra 2025 FDD, Items 5 and 7[2]. “Equipment, build-out, other” is computed as total minus disclosed line items above.
Item 7 · what it costs to open + operate
The Vitals
- Total investment
- $264K – $4.6M
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Liquid capital req'd
- $45K – $75K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Franchise fee
- $35K – $35K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Royalty
- 5.0%
- Set by a formula · typical 6–8%
- Ad fund
- 0.7%
- typical 3–5%
- Total fee load
- 5.7%
- vs 9–13% typical
Ongoing fees · Item 6
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 5.0% of gross sales |
| Marketing / ad fund | 0.7% of gross sales |
| Technology fee | $399 |
| Transfer fee | $5K |
| Renewal fee | $8K |
| Inventory (initial) | $10K – $15K |
| Total fee load | 5.7% of rev |
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
Abra makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD - a voluntary item under the FTC Franchise Rule - so no unit revenue figures are disclosed. The return models need a revenue figure to start from, and the operating costs that turn gross sales into a profit are in no FDD. Enter your own and the calculator runs on your assumptions — nothing here is modelled until you do.
Returns model · single-unit ROIC
What would one Abra unit return on the cash you put in?
Illustrative category typicals — not sourced to any filing, survey or sample. Replace them with figures from franchisee validation calls before you rely on the output.
Unlevered ROIC · per unit
Your modelled return on total invested capital, before any debt financing.
—
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for annual revenue, COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.
These models are for research and scenario planning only. Not investment advice. Actual results depend on your specific location, management, and market conditions. Consult a franchise attorney and accountant before signing any franchise agreement.
Item 19 · Source: 2025 FDD
Financial Performance
No financial performance representation
This franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that.
Item 20 of the FDD lists current and former franchisees; asking them directly is the standard way to fill this gap.
Operator outlook
What the numbers say
Data-driven interpretation of this brand's financial disclosures, fee structure, and system trajectory.
Fee burden
Total ongoing fee load of 5.7% — below the Automotive median of 8.0%.
Disclosure
This franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that. Item 20 of the FDD lists current and former franchisees; asking them directly is the standard way to fill this gap.
Operator retention
System contracting at -3.5% CAGR over 3 years. Investigate whether closures are franchisor-driven consolidation or franchisee exits.
Source: FDD Item 19 financial performance representations and publicly filed FDD data. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Verify all figures with the franchisor and current franchisees before making any investment decision.
vs Automotive medians
How Abra Compares
Category median of published Automotive brands that report the figure; the middle half spans the 25th to 75th percentile and n counts the brands behind it. Medians are used because a few very large systems pull an average far from the typical brand. Revenue is disclosed gross sales, not profit.
Is the system healthy?
Source: FDD 2025 · Item 20
Unit growth
Item 20 · unit dynamics
The Growth Chart
- Total units
- 55
- Opened
- 0
- Last reporting year
- Closed
- 2
- Terminated
- 2
- Franchisor ended the franchise (per Item 20)
- Turnover rate
- 3.6%
- Company-owned
- 0
- Corporate units in the system
- % franchised
- 100%
- vs corporate-owned
- Net growth (3-yr)
- -3.5%
- Net unit change over 3 years
- 3-yr CAGR
- -3.5%
- Compounded over last 3 years
Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers
- Terminated
- 2
- Signed, not yet open
- 0
- 0.00 per open outlet · Item 20 Table 5
- Projected new
- 2
- Franchisor's next-year forecast
Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.
Item 20 · 16 states with active franchisees
The Territory Map
Derived from franchisee contact records. Shows states with at least one current operator. Not where the franchisor is registered to sell new units (that data is re-extracting in a future refresh).
States derived from franchisee contact records (FDD Item 20). Shows states with at least one current operator on file. Full state registration data (Item 12) will appear on a future FDD refresh.
Available to sell in · Item 12
- Illinois
- Minnesota
- North Dakota
- South Dakota
- Wisconsin
States where the franchisor is registered to sell new franchises (FDD registration filings).
Where the owners are · Item 20 owner list
53 current owners across 16 states.
- MN 14
- SD 8
- IA 7
- ND 4
- CO 3
- MI 3
- WI 3
- GA 2
- WA 2
- ID 1
- IL 1
- MT 1
- +4 more states
Counts only, from the list the franchisor prints in Item 20. Names and phone numbers are for your own due diligence and are not shown here.
SBA loan performance
Government records
SBA Loan Data
Aggregated from SBA loan disclosures. This brand has only 1 7(a) loan on file; statistical reliability is limited below 10 loans.
- Total loans
- 1
- Loan volume
- $3.1M
- Median loan
- $3.1M
- average
- Charge-off rate
- Under 10 loans (1)
- Insufficient SBA coverage: 1 loan, rate hidden below 10
Historical SBA 7(a) lending data, not predictive of future performance. How SBA charge-off rates are calculated
- Repayment rate (PIF)
- Under 10 loans (1)
- 5-yr charge-off
- Under 10 loans (1)
- Loans approved 2021+
- Active lenders
- 0
- Defaults
- N/A
Explore lender portfolios on Bank Reports or regional data on State Reports.
What could kill this investment?
Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA · FDD Items 3, 21
Risk analysis
FranchiseVerdict rating + FDD Items 3, 4, 8, 16, 21
Risk & Legal
Abra presents HIGH RISK due to a contracting franchise system, absent financial disclosures, multiple lawsuits against the parent company, and opaque unit economics masked by a wide investment range and mandatory $45K annual royalty floor.
Why this reads harsher than the B grade: the grade weighs financial health, unit economics, unit growth, scale, legal, and transparency across the whole filing, while this summary lists individual flags without that weighting. The flags are worth checking with current owners; neither is investment advice.
Litigation (Item 3)
Subject: the franchisor is a named party (defendant).
Item 3 discloses pending actions against franchisor parent Driven Brands Holdings and affiliates: Genesee County (securities class action), Terwilliger, Gaiman, Kalimon, Bushansky (derivative), and PJC Management/Maaco franchisee suit; plus one concluded predecessor arbitration (Anderson Ford-Mazda, settled $57,500). Separately disclosed affiliate regulatory settlements (Arby's, Dunkin' no-poaching/data breach) noted as not impacting Abra.
Largest disclosed settlement: $650,000
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None disclosed
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Franchisor revenue (Item 21)
Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)
Item 21 attaches audited consolidated financial statements of Driven Systems LLC and Subsidiaries (the parent/guarantor of Abra Franchisor SPV LLC; Driven Systems guarantees Abra's performance), audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Charlotte, NC), in thousands. Balance-sheet figures shown are the audited fiscal-year-end position as of Dec 28, 2024 (Total assets $561,290K; Total liabilities $30,599K (deferred franchise revenue); Members' equity $530,691K; reconciles), scaled x1000 to whole dollars. Annual statement-of-operations figures (total revenue, net income) and the standalone Abra franchisor financials were not legibly recoverable from the OCR text (the audited annual statements rendered with an obfuscated/shifted font, leaving the operations figures blank), so franchisor revenue and net income are left null. The only clean income figures in the text are the UNAUDITED three-month (Q1 2025) Driven Systems statement (Total revenue $63,575K, Net income $55,614K for the quarter), which are not used as annual figures. Note: Abra's own franchisor total revenue for FY2024 was disclosed in Item 6 as $8,380,464. Item 8 states the franchisor's own total revenue as $8,380,464 (FY ending 2024-12-28); the statements above are the parent's.
ⓘ These are the parent company's consolidated financials (the parent guarantees the franchisor), not this brand's standalone results — the figure reflects the whole corporate group, not this brand alone.
Supplier relationship · Items 8 & 16
- Franchisor sells you products: Yes
- Must buy proprietary products: Yes
- Restricted to system-approved products: Yes
Score breakdown · what drove the 59 / 100 verdict
- 01MINORSystem contraction of 3.5% YoY with only 55 units suggests weak franchisee recruitment and retention
- 02MINORNo Item 19 financial disclosure (Avg Revenue and Net Income) prevents validation of ROI claims and raises transparency concerns
- 03MINORMultiple pending securities and class action lawsuits against parent company Driven Brands indicate potential financial instability and management credibility issues
- 04MINORHigh minimum royalty of $45,000/year creates fixed cost burden regardless of sales performance, problematic for underperforming locations
- 05MEDWide investment range ($263k-$4.6M) with no disclosed average revenue makes unit economics impossible to evaluate
- 06MINORAffiliate litigation involving advertising fund misuse and no-poaching agreements suggests corporate governance problems affecting franchisees
- 07MINORNo 'Going Concern' flag indicates potential solvency issues at corporate level, threatening franchise support and brand viability
Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification
Litigation case detail10 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
Parent, affiliates and predecessor
Pending (2)
PJC Management Group, LLC et al. v. MAACO Franchisor SPV LLC, Driven Brands, Inc., and Driven Systems LLC
pendingBrought by a franchisee · MAACO Franchisor SPV LLC, Driven Brands, Inc. and Driven Systems LLC · filed 2025-11-05 · Mecklenburg County Superior Court (North Carolina) · 25-CV-059334-590
“On November 5, 2025, 10 current Maaco franchisees filed a complaint against Maaco, Driven Brands, and Driven Systems alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. 75-1.1 et seq. The Maaco”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Genesee County Employees' Retirement System v. Driven Brands Holdings Inc., et al.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Driven Brands Holdings Inc., with former officers Jonathan Fitzpatrick and Tiffany Mason as co-defendants · filed 2023-12-22 · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division) · 3:23-cv-00895-MOC-DCK
“On December 22, 2023, Genesee County Employees’ Retirement System filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (the “Court”) against Driven Brands Holdings, as well as former Chief Executive Officer and President of Driven Brands, Jonathan Fitzpatrick, and a former e”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Concluded (4)
Anderson Ford-Mazda, LLC v. ABRA Automotive Systems, LP
settledBrought by a franchisee · ABRA Automotive Systems LP ('Our Predecessor', Item 1 p6) · filed 2019-04-24 · American Arbitration Association · 01-19-0001-2666
“The matter relates to the merger between Caliber Collision Centers and Abra Auto Body Repair of America. Claimant alleged that Our Predecessor breached the franchise agreement and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because, after the merger, an existing Caliber auto body repair shop that had been operating for y”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Claimant was paid $57,500, and the parties signed a mutual release of all claims arising from or in any way relating to the parties’ relationship. Following the parties’ notification of settlemen”
New York v. Dunkin' Brands, Inc.
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · Dunkin' Brands, Inc. ('DBI') · filed 2019-09-26 · N.Y. Supreme Court for New York County · 451787/2019
“filed a lawsuit against our affiliate, DBI, related to credential-stuffing cyberattacks during 2015 and 2018. The NYAG alleged that the cyber attackers used individuals’ credentials obtained from elsewhere on the Internet to gain access to certain information for DD Perks customers and others who had registered a Dunkin’ gift ca”Page 23 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Under consent order, DBI agreed to pay $650,000 in penalties and costs, issue certain notices and other types of communications to New York customers, and maintain a comprehensive information security program through September 202”
The People of the State of California v. Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc.
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc. ('ARG') · filed 2019-03-19 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 19STCV09397
“On March 11, 2019, our affiliate, Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc. (“ARG”), entered into a settlement agreement with the states of California, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Pennsylvania. The Attorneys General in these states sought information from ARG on its us”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Under the settlement agreement, ARG paid no money but agreed (a) to remove the disputed provision from its franchise agreements (which it had already done); (b) not to enforce the disputed provision i”
The People of the State of California v. Dunkin' Brands, Inc.
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Dunkin' Brands, Inc. ('DBI') · filed 2019-03-19 · California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 19STCV09597
“On March 14, 2019, our affiliate, Dunkin Brands, Inc. (“DBI”), entered into a settlement agreement with the Attorneys General of 13 states and jurisdictions concerning the inclusion of “no-poaching” provisions in Dunkin’ restaurant franchise agreements. The settling states and jurisdictions included California, Illinois, Iowa, M”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“the action was closed after the court approved the parties’ stipulation of judgment. New York v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. (N” (page 23)
Officers and directors (individuals, not the company)
Pending (4)
Bushansky v. Fitzpatrick, et al.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Jonathan Fitzpatrick and other current and former Driven Brands Holdings executive officers and board members, including Chief Executive Officer Daniel Rivera and board member Damien Harmon · filed 2025-11-18 · Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware · 2025-1306-MTZ
“and Bushansky v. Fitzpatrick, et al., Case No. 2025-1306-MTZ, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (November 2025). John Kalimon and Stephen Bushansky each filed on October 7, 2025 and November 18, 2025, respectively, purported derivative complaints against current and former Driven Brands Holdings’ executive office”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Gaiman v. Fitzpatrick, et al.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Jonathan Fitzpatrick, Tiffany Mason, Neal Aronson, Catherine Halligan, Chadwick Hume, Rick Puckett, Karen Stroup, Peter Swinburn, Michael Thompson and Jose Tomas (current and former Driven Brands Hold · filed 2025-04-30 · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division) · 3:25-cv-00288
“On April 30, 2025, Jonathan Gaiman filed a purported derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against certain current and former Driven Brands Holdings’ executive officers and board members, including Jonathan Fitzpatrick, Tiffany Mason, Neal Aronson, Catherine Halligan,”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Kalimon v. Aronson, et al.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Neal Aronson and other current and former Driven Brands Holdings executive officers and board members, including Chief Executive Officer Daniel Rivera and board member Damien Harmon · filed 2025-10-07 · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division) · 3:25-cv-00764
“Kalimon v. Aronson, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00764, in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division) (October 2025), and Bushansky v. Fitzpatrick, et al., Case No. 2025-1306-MTZ, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (November 2025). John Kalimon and Stephen Bushansk”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Terwilliger v. Fitzpatrick, et al.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Jonathan Fitzpatrick, Tiffany Mason, Neal Aronson, Catherine Halligan, Chadwick Hume, Rick Puckett, Karen Stroup, Peter Swinburn, Michael Thompson and Jose Tomas (current and former Driven Brands Hold · filed 2025-01-10 · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division) · 3:25-cv-00019
“On January 10, 2025, Daniel Terwilliger filed a purported derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against certain current and former Driven Brands Holdings’ executive officers and board members, including Jonathan Fitzpatrick, Tiffany Mason, Neal Aronson, Catherine Hall”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Item 3 lists the litigation the franchisor must disclose; a matter against a parent, an affiliate or a named officer is not a matter against the franchisor, and pending claims are allegations, not findings.
What are you signing up for?
Ongoing fees run about 5.7% of sales (royalty + ad fund), before rent and labor.
Source: FDD 2025 · Items 11, 12, 17
FDD Items 12, 15, 17 · continued from Risk & Legal
Contract & Territory Detail
| Initial term | 10 years |
|---|---|
| Renewal term | 10 years |
| Allowed renewalsℹ | 1 |
| Territory type | Protected territory |
| Protected territory | Yes |
| Exclusive territoryℹ | No |
| Territory radius | 1 mi |
| Online sales rights | Restricted |
| Franchisor can compete | Yes |
| Hire a manager? | Allowed |
| Owner-operator | Required |
| Non-compete (years)ℹ | 1 year |
| Non-compete (miles)ℹ | 10 mi |
| Right of first refusalℹ | Yes |
| RoFR response window | 90 days |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Termination notice | 30 days |
| Mandatory arbitration | Yes |
| Arbitration location | Charlotte, North Carolina |
| Jury trial waiver | Yes |
| Governing law | NC |
| Litigation count | 10 |
View Item 3 litigation summary
Item 3 discloses pending actions against franchisor parent Driven Brands Holdings and affiliates: Genesee County (securities class action), Terwilliger, Gaiman, Kalimon, Bushansky (derivative), and PJC Management/Maaco franchisee suit; plus one concluded predecessor arbitration (Anderson Ford-Mazda, settled $57,500). Separately disclosed affiliate regulatory settlements (Arby's, Dunkin' no-poaching/data breach) noted as not impacting Abra.
Items 10, 11
Training & Operations
- Classroom training
- 17 hrs
- On-the-job training
- 11 hrs
- Training location
- Franchisee's Repair Center and Online
- Ongoing training
- Required
- Time to open
- 9 mo
- From signing to launch
- Site selection
- franchisee with franchisor assistance/consent
- Franchisor financing
- Not offered
- Item 10
- POS system
- Network Computer System (CCC One)
- Operating tech stack
Items 5 & 11
Franchisor Support
Technology: Network Computer System (CCC One)
Item 20 · call current owners
Franchisee Contacts
53 owners to call
Name · phone · city · state. Extracted from FDD Item 20
Frequently asked questions
Frequently Asked Questions
How much does it cost to open a Abra franchise?
The total investment to open a Abra franchise ranges from $264K – $4.6M, with an initial franchise fee of $35K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).
What do Abra franchise owners earn?
Abra makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD - a voluntary item under the FTC Franchise Rule - so no unit revenue figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that. Item 20 of the FDD lists current and former franchisees; asking them directly is the standard way to fill this gap.
Who owns Abra?
Abra is franchised by ABRA Franchisor SPV LLC. Its parent company is Driven Systems LLC. The ultimate parent named in the FDD is Driven Brands Holdings Inc.. Source: FDD Item 1, 2025 filing.
What is Item 19 in the Abra FDD?
The FDD section where a franchisor may disclose financial performance of its outlets. Disclosure is optional and formats vary; figures are typically gross sales, which is revenue before expenses, not profit. FranchiseVerdict extracts these figures directly from the Abra FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is Abra's franchise failure rate?
SBA 7(a) loan charge-off data is not available for Abra (fewer than 10 loans on file). Charge-off rates are one way to gauge franchise risk, but not all franchise loans go through the SBA program. We recommend reviewing turnover and closure data in the FDD and speaking with current franchisees.
How many Abra franchise locations are there?
As of their most recent FDD filing, Abra has 55 total units in the United States, including 55 franchised units and 0 company-owned units.
Is Abra a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict rates Abra as a B-grade franchise with a verdict score of 59 out of 100 (higher is better). The grade is a deterministic score built from six weighted dimensions — financial health, unit economics, unit growth, scale, legal, and transparency — then calibrated against SBA loan charge-off rates and FDD age. Transparency is one of the six, so a filing that discloses less scores lower on that dimension than one that discloses more. Our rating is based solely on publicly available FDD and government data; we recommend speaking with current franchisees before making any investment decision. This is not investment advice.
Data sourced from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) FOIA records. Not financial advice.
For franchisors
Are you the franchisor?
If you represent Abra, you can request corrections or provide updated information.
Other Automotive franchises
Compare similar franchise opportunities in the Automotive category
Data extracted from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) loan disclosures (FOIA). This information is provided for research purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice. Verify all figures with the franchisor's current Franchise Disclosure Document before making any investment decision.