Budget Blinds Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026
- Investment
- $101K – $211K
- Disclosed sales
- $775K
- gross sales, not profit
- SBA charge-off
- 14.4%
- on 366 loans
Data from FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records
Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology
Budget Blinds is a mobile home-services franchise selling and installing window coverings, blinds, shades, shutters, and drapes, through in-home consultations. Franchisees run a branded van operation serving residential and commercial customers in an assigned territory.
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026
A BUDGET BLINDS franchise requires a total initial investment of $101K – $211K, including a $20K franchise fee and an ongoing 3.5% royalty[2]. Per the 2026 FDD, average revenue per territory was $775K. This franchisor reports Item 19 per territory rather than per outlet, so the figure is not comparable with per-outlet averages[2]. SBA 7(a) loans show a 14.4% charge-off rate across 366 loans[1]. 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: low - issued within the last 12 months
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 scored7 of 7 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing.
Overview
- Investment
- $101K – $211K
- 35th pct Home Services
- Avg gross sales
- $775K
- Per territory, not per outletOutlet subset
- Royalty
- 3.5%
- 4th pct Home Services
- Units
- 1,355
- 89th pct Home Services
- SBA charge-off
- 14.4%
- % of SBA 7(a) loans not repaid · median varies by category
Quick verdict · Home Services · color = vs category peers
Green = favorable by >10% vs Home Services 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 $101K – $211K including a $20K franchise fee, 3.5% ongoing royalty.
- RETURNSAverage revenue per territory of $775K/year (median $523K) (reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system). Averaged per territory, not per outlet - not comparable with per-outlet figures.
- RISKVerdict B (Above average), verdict score 68/100 (higher is better). SBA loan charge-off rate of 14.4% across 366 loans (above the 16% franchise average, based on all SBA 7(a) franchise lending, 2010–2025).
- GROWTHNegative: net -11 franchised outlets in the latest year (16 opened, 6 closed); 6 signed but not yet open (Item 20).
- SCALEEstablished system with 1,355 units across 32 years of franchising. Strong brand recognition and operational playbook.
Item 1 · who you're contracting with
The Franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- Budget Blinds, LLC
- Parent company
- Home Franchise Concepts, LLC
- FDD Item 1, page 8 of the 2026 FDD
- Ultimate parent
- JM Family Enterprises, Inc.
- FDD Item 1, page 8 of the 2026 FDD
- Predecessor
- Budget Blinds, Inc.
- Prior franchisor entity
- CEO title
- President
- Heather Nykolaychuk
- Incorporated in
- California
- HQ
- 19000 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92612
- Auditor
- PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
- Audited financials
- Franchisor revenue
- $145.5M
- vs $143.3M prior year
Same owner · FDD Item 1, page 8
8 other brands on this site name JM Family Enterprises, Inc. as parent or ultimate parent in their own FDD.
- AdvantaCleanD
- Aussie Pet MobileC
- BATH TUNE-UPB
- CONCRETE CRAFTD
- PREMIERGARAGEB
- THE TAILORED CLOSETB
- TWO MAIDSA
- Tailored LivingC
Portfolio: Home Franchise Concepts
Grouped by the owner's name as each filing prints it (this page: the 2026 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
- Heather Nykolaychuk
- Headquarters
- California
- Founded
- 1992
- FDD year
- 2026
- States available
- 51
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost is about typical for a home services franchise (near the category median).
Source: FDD 2026 · Items 5–7
FDD Item 7 · 2026 filing
Initial investment breakdown
| Cost component | Low | High |
|---|---|---|
| Initial franchise fee | $20K | $20K |
| Working capital (3–6 mo) | $25K | $40K |
| Equipment, build-out, other | $56K | $151K |
| Total initial investment | $101K | $211K |
Source: BUDGET BLINDS 2026 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
- $101K – $211K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Liquid capital req'd
- $25K – $40K
- Middle of category vs category
- Franchise fee
- $20K – $20K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Royalty
- 3.5%
- Set by a formula · typical 6–8%
- Ad fund
- Flat monthly National Advertising Fund payment: $1,000 (T…
- Total fee load
- 3.5%
- vs 9–13% typical
Ongoing fees · Item 6
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 3.5% of gross sales |
| Technology fee | $600 |
| Transfer fee | $5K |
| Renewal fee | $5K |
| Total fee load | 3.5% of rev |
A 3.5% total fee load is unusually lean. More of each revenue dollar stays with the franchisee.
What do units actually make?
Average unit sales run 32% above the home services norm.
Averaged per territory, not per outlet - not comparable with per-outlet figures
Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system
Source: FDD 2026 · Item 19
Single-unit · not modelled
Returns at a glance
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit, and the operating costs that turn one into the other are in no filing. We publish no modelled return for BUDGET BLINDS until someone supplies them — yours, in the models below.
—
Not modelled yet
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for ad fund rate, 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.
Total invested capital · disclosed
$188K
Item 7 initial investment plus working capital, as filed — the one figure here that needs no assumption.
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
What one unit earns on your invested capital
Model A · Single-Unit Return
Computes unlevered return on invested capital (ROIC) for a single franchise unit, read against the 30–60% reference band · Yale SOM, Post-MBA Path Exhibit 2 (2023). Below that band a passive index fund likely outperforms; above it the franchisor has pricing power you're subsidizing.
Note: Item 19 revenue is what the franchisor discloses, and it is the top line only — gross sales are not profit. No FDD discloses the operating costs that turn one into the other, so those fields start empty and nothing is modelled until you supply them from your own lease quote, labor market and build-out budget.
Returns model · single-unit ROIC
What would one BUDGET BLINDS 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 ad fund rate, 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.
What 25 units return when you use SBA financing
Model B · Return on Equity: Debt-Financed Acquisition
Models a 25-unit portfolio acquisition financed with an SBA 7(a) loan. Shows equity IRR (your return on cash invested), DSCR (how safely the cash flow covers debt service), and the capital stack (SBA + seller + equity breakdown).
This is the “search fund” or “entrepreneurship through acquisition” scenario: you buy an existing multi-unit operator, use leverage to amplify returns, and either operate or hire management. The 25-unit size is the typical minimum for an SBA-backed franchise portfolio acquisition to pencil as a full-time income.
What “return on equity” means here: if you put in $500K of your own cash and the business generates enough EBITDA to pay down debt and grow, your equity IRR is the annual return on that $500K, including the value created when you eventually sell. Target IRR for a search fund is typically 25–35%.
Not modelled yet
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for ad fund rate, 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.
A 25-unit return is built on a per-unit EBITDA. Fill in the operating costs in Model A above and this model runs on that figure, or take the whole scenario to the full ROI workbench, where the portfolio and LBO models accept your own per-unit economics directly.
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: 2026 FDD
Financial Performance
Averaged per territory, not per outlet - not comparable with per-outlet figures
Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system
- Avg gross sales
- $775K
- Per territory, per year — not per outlet
- Median gross sales
- $523K
- Per territory, not per outlet
Gross sales are revenue before expenses — not profit. Actual owner earnings depend on rent, labor, royalties, marketing fees, and debt service.
- Item 19 type
- historical actual gross sales by territory-count cohort (average, median, 25th/75th percentile, middle-50% average), FY2025 vs FY2024
- Sample size
- 282 territories
- vs category median 32 · large
- Range (low → high)
- $53K→$9.3MCited, not corroborated — printed on page 50 of the 2026 FDD. Nothing else in our record independently restates or re-derives it.
- Cohort dispersion (min → max)
- Quartile band
- $341K→$921K
- Bottom 25% → top 25%, per territory
- Reporting year
- 2025
- Fiscal year the figures cover
- Source filing
- FDD 2026
- Disclosed in the 2026 filing, covering 2025
- Transparency
- 4 / 10
- vs category median 4 / 10 · typical
Compared against 319 Home Services brands
Operator outlook
What the numbers say
Data-driven interpretation of this brand's financial disclosures, fee structure, and system trajectory.
Unit economics
The average territory generates $775K/year in gross sales. Median is $523K — top performers pull the average up, so a typical unit earns less. Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system.
Fee burden
Total ongoing fee load of 3.5% — below the Home Services median of 8.0%.
Disclosure
Transparency score 4/10 — this franchisor discloses detailed breakdowns (quartiles, segments, or cohort data). Buyers can model unit economics with higher confidence.
Operator retention
System expanding at 13.5% CAGR over 3 years across 1,355 units — operators are staying and new ones are joining.
Multi-unit rate
54% of franchisees own multiple units — high repeat-buyer rate signals strong unit economics and operator satisfaction.
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 Home Services medians
How Budget Blinds Compares
Per territory, not per outlet - the category median is per-outlet only, so no comparison is shown
Category median of published Home Services 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 2026 · Item 20
Unit growth
Item 20 · unit dynamics
The Growth Chart
- Total units
- 1,355
- Opened
- 16
- Last reporting year
- Closed
- 6
- Terminated
- 15
- Franchisor ended the franchise (per Item 20)
- Non-renewed
- 6
- Term expired, not renewed (per Item 20)
- Turnover rate
- 2.0%
- Company-owned
- 0
- Corporate units in the system
- % franchised
- 100%
- vs corporate-owned
- Multi-unit owners
- 54.0%
- Net growth (3-yr)
- -0.8%
- Net unit change over 3 years
- 3-yr CAGR
- +13.5%
- Compounded over last 3 years
Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers
- Terminated
- 15
- Not renewed
- 6
- Transferred
- 97
- Reacquired
- 0
- Franchisor bought back
- Signed, not yet open
- 6
- 0.00 per open outlet · Item 20 Table 5
- Projected new
- 15
- Franchisor's next-year forecast
Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.
Item 20 · 51 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.
Where the owners are · Item 20 owner list
912 current owners across 51 states; 26 former (terminated, transferred or not renewed) listed separately.
- CA 106
- FL 68
- TX 68
- PA 41
- NY 40
- OH 34
- GA 29
- NC 29
- IL 28
- WA 28
- MA 27
- MI 27
- +39 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 7(a) and 504 loan disclosures, public data unique to FranchiseVerdict.
- Total loans
- 366
- Loan volume
- $114.3M
- Median loan
- $150K
- 50th percentile
- Charge-off rate
- 14.4%
- on 366 loans · rates vary by category · see methodology
Historical SBA 7(a) lending data, not predictive of future performance. How SBA charge-off rates are calculated
- Repayment rate (PIF)
- 85.6%
- 5-yr charge-off
- 3.6%
- Loans approved 2021+
- Active lenders
- 102
- Defaults
- 29
- Typical loan rate
- 7.5%
- avg rate to borrowers
- Franchised industry avg
- 16.1%
- brand beats franchise avg ↓
- Jobs supported
- 1,968
- 1.7 per loan
- Lender concentration
- 22%
- top lender's share
Borrower mix: 51% went to startups / new businesses, 49% to established operators
Franchise vs independent — in window treatment stores, franchised businesses charge off at 16.1% vs 29.1% for independents — franchising is associated with 45% lower SBA default risk in this category.
Vintage analysis
Budget Blinds charge-off rate by loan vintage
Top lenders financing Budget Blinds franchisees
Showing 3 of 102 lenders. The full breakdown — every lender, state distribution, interest rates & risk ratings — is in the SBA Lending Report below.
Explore lender portfolios on Bank Reports or regional data on State Reports.
Lender network · 7(a) + 504
SBA Lending Report
Full lending analysis for Budget Blinds from SBA 7(a) FOIA data.
- Principal loss rate
- 1.8%
- Avg SBA guarantee
- 75%
- Avg interest rate
- 7.47%
- Avg chargeoff amount
- $73K
- Lender concentration
- 22.1%
- Job velocity
- 1.7 per $100K
- Startup risk premium
- +9.2pp
- NAICS benchmark
- 16.1%
- NAICS 442291
- Jobs supported
- 1,968
Top SBA lendersTop lender holds 22% of loans
| # | Lender | Loans | Volume | Default % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United Midwest Savings Bank National Association | 81 | $12.0M | 14.8% |
| 2 | Celtic Bank Corporation | 28 | $4.4M | 4.0% |
| 3 | Wells Fargo Bank National Association | 18 | $5.3M | 18.2% |
| 4 | First Bank | 18 | $8.8M | 0.0% |
| 5 | The Huntington National Bank | 17 | $5.7M | 0.0% |
| 6 | Mission Valley Bank | 17 | $15.4M | 0.0% |
| 7 | First Bank of the Lake | 12 | $4.2M | 20.0% |
| 8 | Bank of America, National Association | 10 | $6.6M | 60.0% |
| 9 | Stearns Bank National Association | 8 | $1.8M | 14.3% |
| 10 | JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association | 6 | $723K | 16.7% |
Geographic failure vector
| State | Loans | Defaults | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| TXTexas | 35 | 5 | 20.8% |
| CACalifornia | 33 | 3 | 17.6% |
| FLFlorida | 30 | 4 | 25.0% |
| PAPennsylvania | 20 | 0 | 0.0% |
| MNMinnesota | 18 | 2 | 20.0% |
| WIWisconsin | 17 | 0 | 0.0% |
| ILIllinois | 14 | 1 | 10.0% |
| OHOhio | 13 | 0 | 0.0% |
| MIMichigan | 12 | 0 | 0.0% |
| IAIowa | 11 | 1 | 12.5% |
SBA 7(a) lending trend
Borrower profile
Source: SBA 7(a) + 504 FOIA loan-level data, matched by FranchiseVerdict
What could kill this investment?
SBA loans charge off at 14.4% — 10% below the 16.0% national norm, i.e. lower lender-observed risk.
Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA · FDD Items 3, 21
Risk analysis
FranchiseVerdict rating + FDD Items 3, 4, 8, 16, 21
Risk & Legal
Budget Blinds presents moderate-to-caution risk: a mature, slow-growing system with undisclosed profitability, active litigation, and high entry costs that limit visibility into realistic unit economics and franchisee satisfaction.
Litigation (Item 3)
Subject: the franchisor is a named party (plaintiff).
One administrative consent order (2006, affiliate Aussie Pet Mobile, no monetary sanctions, Maryland franchise law violation) plus three franchisor suits against franchisees in the last fiscal year to collect royalty payments and fees (Michigan, Texas, Wisconsin, filed Jan-Nov 2025).
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None disclosed
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Franchisor revenue (Item 21)
Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)
ⓘ 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: No
- Kickbacks from required suppliers: Yes
- Must buy proprietary products: Yes
- Restricted to system-approved products: Yes
- Can negotiate own supplier terms: No
Score breakdown · what drove the 68 / 100 verdict
- 01MINORStagnant unit growth (0.3% YoY) suggests market saturation or franchisee dissatisfaction in mature 1,366-unit system
- 02MINORTiered royalty structure with fixed fees ($1,250–$2,500/mo) creates burden for lower-revenue locations; breakeven analysis unclear
- 03HIGHActive litigation including franchisor collection suit against franchisee (GTHI, LLC) indicates payment/compliance disputes
- 04MINORHigh initial investment range ($100,500–$211,250) combined with lack of Item 19 net income data prevents ROI validation
- 05MINORProtected territory offers competitive advantage but does not offset opaque profitability metrics
Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification
Litigation case detail4 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Status not stated in the filing (3)
Budget Blinds, LLC v. Eric J. Barenholtz et. al.
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-01-30 · 6th Judicial Circuit Court, Oakland County, Michigan · 2025-212639CK
“Budget Blinds, LLC v. Eric J. Barenholtz et. al., Case No. 2025-212639CK, 6th Judicial Circuit Court, Oakland County, Michigan, filed on January 30, 2025.”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Budget Blinds, LLC v. Luis Angel Lopez Trevino et. al.
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-04-04 · County Court, Hildago County, Texas · CL-25-1364-G
“Budget Blinds, LLC v. Luis Angel Lopez Trevino et. al., Case No. CL-25-1364-G, County Court, Hildago County, Texas, filed on April 4, 2025.”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Budget Blinds, LLC v. Marathon Dreams, Inc. et. al.
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-11-24 · Circuit Court, Polk County, Wisconsin · 2025CV000334
“Budget Blinds, LLC v. Marathon Dreams, Inc. et. al., Case No. 2025CV000334, Circuit Court, Polk County, Wisconsin, filed on November 24, 2025.”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Parent, affiliates and predecessor
Concluded (1)
In the Matter of: Aussie Pet Mobile, Inc. and Ian Moses
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · Aussie Pet Mobile, Inc. (affiliate per Item 1; 'while under previous ownership') and Ian Moses · Administrative Proceeding before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland (Securities Division of the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland) · 2004-0162 - 2005
“In the Matter of: Aussie Pet Mobile, Inc. and Ian Moses (Administrative Proceeding before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland; Case No. 2004-0162 - 2005) On January 25, 2006, Aussie Pet Mobile, Inc., while under previous ownership, entered into a Consent Order with the Securities Division of the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland (the “Division”)”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“While the Consent Order contained no monetary sanctions, it required the franchisor to cease and desist from the offer and sale of franchises in violation of the Maryland Franchise Law.”
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 3.5% of sales (royalty + ad fund), before rent and labor.
Source: FDD 2026 · Items 11, 12, 17
FDD Items 12, 15, 17 · continued from Risk & Legal
Contract & Territory Detail
| Initial term | 10 years |
|---|---|
| Renewal term | 5 years |
| Allowed renewalsℹ | 2 |
| Territory type | Protected territory |
| Protected territory | Yes |
| Exclusive territoryℹ | No |
| Territory population | 30,000 |
| Online sales rightsℹ | Restricted |
| Franchisor can compete | Yes |
| Hire a manager? | Allowed |
| Owner-operator | Optional |
| Non-compete (years)ℹ | 2 years |
| Non-compete (miles)ℹ | 25 mi |
| Right of first refusalℹ | Yes |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Termination notice | 30 days |
| Termination groundsℹ | 16 |
| Curable defaultsℹ | 2 |
| Mandatory arbitration | Yes |
| Arbitration location | Orange County, California |
| Jury trial waiver | Yes |
| Governing law | California |
| Litigation count | 4 |
View Item 3 litigation summary
One administrative consent order (2006, affiliate Aussie Pet Mobile, no monetary sanctions, Maryland franchise law violation) plus three franchisor suits against franchisees in the last fiscal year to collect royalty payments and fees (Michigan, Texas, Wisconsin, filed Jan-Nov 2025).
Items 10, 11
Training & Operations
- Classroom training
- 81 hrs
- On-the-job training
- 0 hrs
- Training location
- Coppell, Texas (HFC Experience Center) plus virtual/HFCU online modules
- Ongoing training
- Required
- Time to open
- 1 mo
- From signing to launch
- Site selection
- franchisee
- Franchisor financing
- Not offered
- Item 10
- POS system
- CRM System (proprietary, provided free of charge)
- Operating tech stack
Items 5 & 11
Franchisor Support
Technology: CRM System (proprietary, provided free of charge)
Item 20 · call current owners
Franchisee Contacts
938 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 BUDGET BLINDS franchise?
The total investment to open a BUDGET BLINDS franchise ranges from $101K – $211K, with an initial franchise fee of $20K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).
What do BUDGET BLINDS franchise owners earn?
According to Item 19 of the BUDGET BLINDS FDD, the average gross sales per unit is $775K. The median is $523K. Important context: Averaged per territory, not per outlet - not comparable with per-outlet figures; Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system. Note: this is gross revenue, not profit. Actual owner earnings vary based on location, operating costs, and management.
Who owns BUDGET BLINDS?
BUDGET BLINDS is franchised by Budget Blinds, LLC. Its parent company is Home Franchise Concepts, LLC. The ultimate parent named in the FDD is JM Family Enterprises, Inc.. Source: FDD Item 1, 2026 filing.
What is Item 19 in the BUDGET BLINDS 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 BUDGET BLINDS FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is BUDGET BLINDS's franchise failure rate?
Based on SBA 7(a) loan data, BUDGET BLINDS has a charge-off rate of 14.4% across 366 loans, meaning 14.4% of franchise loans were charged off. Charge-off rates are one proxy for franchise risk, though they do not capture all closures. This data comes from FOIA-sourced SBA lending records.
How many BUDGET BLINDS franchise locations are there?
As of their most recent FDD filing, BUDGET BLINDS has 1,355 total units in the United States, including 1,355 franchised units and 0 company-owned units. 16 new units were opened in the latest reporting year.
Is BUDGET BLINDS a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict rates BUDGET BLINDS as a B-grade franchise with a verdict score of 68 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 BUDGET BLINDS, you can request corrections or provide updated information.
Other Home Services franchises
Compare similar franchise opportunities in the Home Services 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.