Coldwell Banker Commercial® Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026
- Investment
- $37K – $554K
- Disclosed sales
- not disclosed
- SBA charge-off
- 0.0%
- on 13 loans
Data from FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records
Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology
Coldwell Banker Commercial is a commercial real-estate brokerage franchise handling sales, leasing, and property management. Franchisees run offices recruiting and supporting commercial agents, earning from transaction commissions.
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026
A Coldwell Banker Commercial® franchise requires a total initial investment of $37K – $554K, including a $20K franchise fee and an ongoing 5.5% 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. SBA 7(a) loans show a 0.0% charge-off rate across 13 loans[1]. FranchiseVerdict grade: B (Above average), an editorial assessment, not investment advice. Run a live ROI scan →
Sources, dates and evidence
FDD issued: 2026 filing · Data extracted: · Last cited check: · Staleness risk: low - the current year's filing
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
- $37K – $554K
- 21st pct Real Estate
- Avg gross sales
- N/A
- Royalty
- 5.5%
- 21st pct Real Estate
- Units
- 135
- 58th pct Real Estate
- SBA charge-off
- 0.0%
- % of SBA 7(a) loans not repaid · median varies by category
Quick verdict · Real Estate · color = vs category peers
Green = favorable by >10% vs Real Estate 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 $37K – $554K including a $20K franchise fee, 5.5% 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 66/100 (higher is better). SBA loan charge-off rate of 0.0% across 13 loans (well below the franchise average, based on all SBA 7(a) franchise lending, 2010–2025).
- GROWTHNegative: net -1 franchised outlets in the latest year (25 opened, 10 closed); 7 signed but not yet open (Item 20).
- LEGAL15 litigation matters disclosed in Item 3, higher than typical. Of these, 4 name the franchisor itself, 11 its parent, affiliates or predecessor. Pending claims are allegations, not findings.
Item 1 · who you're contracting with
The Franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- Coldwell Banker Real Estate LLC
- Parent company
- Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC
- FDD Item 1, page 9 of the 2026 FDD
- Ultimate parent
- Compass, Inc.
- FDD Item 1, page 9 of the 2026 FDD
- CEO title
- President and Chief Executive Officer, Compass International Holdings Franchise Brands
- Elisabeth Gehringer
- Incorporated in
- CA
- HQ
- 175 Park Avenue, Madison, New Jersey 07940
- Auditor
- PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
- Audited financials
- Franchisor revenue
- $6.0B
- vs $5.7B prior year
Same owner · FDD Item 1, page 9
6 other brands on this site name Compass, Inc. as parent or ultimate parent in their own FDD.
- Better Homes and Gardens Real EstateD
- CENTURY 21®B
- Christie’s International Real EstateB
- Coldwell BankerB
- CorcoranB
- Sotheby’s International RealtyB
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
- Elisabeth Gehringer
- Headquarters
- NJ
- Founded
- 1981
- FDD year
- 2026
- States available
- 39
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost runs 122% above the typical real estate franchise.
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) | $15K | $100K |
| Equipment, build-out, other | $2K | $434K |
| Total initial investment | $37K | $554K |
Source: Coldwell Banker Commercial® 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
- $37K – $554K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Liquid capital req'd
- $15K – $100K
- Middle of category vs category
- Franchise fee
- $20K – $20K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Royalty
- 5.5%
- Tiered by sales volume · typical 6–8%
- Ad fund
- 2.0%
- typical 3–5%
- Total fee load
- 8.0%
- vs 9–13% typical
Ongoing fees · Item 6
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 5.5% of gross sales |
| Marketing / ad fund | 2.0% of gross sales |
| Transfer fee | $5K |
| Total fee load | 8.0% of rev |
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
Coldwell Banker Commercial® 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 Coldwell Banker Commercial® 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: 2026 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 8.0% (near the Real Estate median).
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 -2.2% CAGR over 3 years. Investigate whether closures are franchisor-driven consolidation or franchisee exits.
Multi-unit rate
Only 8% of franchisees own multiple units. Could indicate challenging economics or a young system where operators haven't had time to expand.
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 Real Estate medians
How Coldwell Banker Commercial® Compares
Category median of published Real Estate 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
- 135
- Opened
- 25
- Last reporting year
- Closed
- 10
- Terminated
- 0
- Franchisor ended the franchise (per Item 20)
- Non-renewed
- 10
- Term expired, not renewed (per Item 20)
- Turnover rate
- 3.7%
- Company-owned
- 1
- Corporate units in the system
- % franchised
- 99%
- vs corporate-owned
- Multi-unit owners
- 8.3%
- Net growth (3-yr)
- -2.2%
- Net unit change over 3 years
- 3-yr CAGR
- -2.2%
- Compounded over last 3 years
Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers
- Terminated
- 0
- Not renewed
- 10
- Transferred
- 6
- Reacquired
- 0
- Franchisor bought back
- Signed, not yet open
- 7
- 0.05 per open outlet · Item 20 Table 5
- Projected new
- 13
- Franchisor's next-year forecast
Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.
Item 20 · 39 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
141 current owners across 39 states.
- CA 20
- TX 15
- GA 13
- FL 6
- IL 6
- WI 6
- IN 5
- KY 5
- LA 5
- MT 5
- NY 5
- OH 4
- +27 more states
Counts only, from the list the franchisor prints in Item 20; 1 entries carry no state. 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
- 13
- Loan volume
- $6.8M
- Median loan
- $235K
- 50th percentile
- Charge-off rate
- 0.0%
- on 13 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)
- 100.0%
- 5-yr charge-off
- N/A
- Loans approved 2021+
- Active lenders
- 7
- Defaults
- 0
- Typical loan rate
- 7.2%
- avg rate to borrowers
- Franchised industry avg
- 14.8%
- brand beats franchise avg ↓
- Jobs supported
- 174
- 2.6 per loan
- Lender concentration
- 31%
- top lender's share
Borrower mix: 8% went to startups / new businesses, 92% to established operators
Franchise vs independent — in offices of real estate agents and brokers, franchised businesses charge off at 14.8% vs 29.6% for independents — franchising is associated with 50% lower SBA default risk in this category.
Top lenders financing Coldwell Banker Commercial® franchisees
Showing 3 of 7 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 Coldwell Banker Commercial® from SBA 7(a) FOIA data.
- Principal loss rate
- 0.0%
- Avg SBA guarantee
- 65%
- Avg interest rate
- 7.21%
- Lender concentration
- 30.8%
- Job velocity
- 2.6 per $100K
- NAICS benchmark
- 8.5%
- NAICS 531210
- Jobs supported
- 174
Top SBA lendersTop lender holds 31% of loans
| # | Lender | Loans | Volume | Default % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Heritage Bank | 4 | $814K | 0.0% |
| 2 | United Community Bank | 2 | $1.6M | 0.0% |
| 3 | JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association | 2 | $600K | 0.0% |
| 4 | Pinnacle Bank | 2 | $2.6M | N/A |
| 5 | Busey Bank | 1 | $43K | 0.0% |
| 6 | Banc of California | 1 | $272K | N/A |
| 7 | Readycap Lending, LLC | 1 | $807K | N/A |
Geographic failure vector
| State | Loans | Defaults | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| WAWashington | 4 | 0 | 0.0% |
| CACalifornia | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
| GAGeorgia | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
| TNTennessee | 2 | 0 | -- |
| COColorado | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| FLFlorida | 1 | 0 | -- |
| NYNew York | 1 | 0 | -- |
SBA 7(a) lending trend
Borrower profile
Source: SBA 7(a) + 504 FOIA loan-level data, matched by FranchiseVerdict
With a 0.0% charge-off rate across 13 loans, banks have historically viewed this brand favorably for lending.
What could kill this investment?
SBA loans charge off at 0.0% — 100% 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
Coldwell Banker Commercial presents moderate-to-high risk due to absent financial disclosures, significant pending litigation (antitrust/commission disputes), slow unit growth, unprotected territory, and regulatory scrutiny—making it difficult to validate ROI or franchisee viability.
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).
Franchisor as plaintiff in trademark/collection actions against former franchisees; franchisor and parent (Anywhere) as defendants in antitrust commission class actions (Moehrl, Burnett, Nosalek, Batton, Homie), TCPA class action (Chinitz), merger-related shareholder suits, and resolved RESPA/HUD regulatory proceedings. Anywhere entered $83.5M settlement (Moehrl/Burnett) and $9.6M opt-in settlement (Tuccori/Batton).
Largest disclosed settlement: $83,500,000
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None disclosed
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Franchisor revenue (Item 21)
Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)
Item 21 includes only the audited consolidated financial statements of the parent/guarantor companies Anywhere Real Estate Inc. and Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC (in millions) for years ended Dec 31, 2025/2024/2023; standalone statements of the franchisor (Coldwell Banker Real Estate LLC) are not included. FY2025 net revenues $5,960M (Gross commission income $4,849M, Service revenue $607M, Franchise fees $372M, Other $132M); net loss $(89)M. Auditor CPA firm name not captured in extracted text (report signed in Florham Park, NJ, Feb 25, 2026).
ⓘ 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: No
- Must buy proprietary products: No
- Restricted to system-approved products: No
- Can negotiate own supplier terms: Yes
Score breakdown · what drove the 66 / 100 verdict
- 01MINORNo Item 19 financial performance disclosure—cannot validate average revenue or profitability claims
- 02MEDFive pending class actions involving antitrust and buyer-broker commission disputes create systemic legal uncertainty and potential regulatory liability
- 03MINORSlow unit growth (6.2% YoY) with only 139 locations suggests market saturation, franchisee underperformance, or brand weakness in commercial real estate segment
- 04MINORUnprotected territory means franchisees compete directly with other CBC franchisees and company-owned offices for the same clients
- 05MINORTiered royalty structure (6% up to $1M, then 3%) incentivizes franchisees to cap growth artificially to avoid higher tax burden
- 06MINORMultiple trademark infringement cases and regulatory proceedings (HUD, FTC, Washington AG) indicate compliance and brand integrity risks
Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification
Litigation case detail15 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Pending (2)
Jennifer Nosalek, Randy Hirschorn, and Tracey Hirschorn, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. MLS Property Information Network, Inc., Anywhere Real Estate, Inc. (f/k/a Realogy Holdings Corp.), Century 21 Real Estate LLC, Coldwell Banker Real Estate LLC, Sotheby’s Internatio
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2020-12-17 · U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1:20-cv-12244
“Jennifer Nosalek, Randy Hirschorn, and Tracey Hirschorn, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. MLS Property Information Network, Inc., Anywhere Real Estate, Inc. (f/k/a Realogy Holdings Corp.), Century 21 Real Estate LLC, Coldwell Banker Real Estate LLC, Sotheby’s International Realty Affiliates LLC, Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate LLC, ERA Franchise Systems LLC,”Page 23 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On February 14, 2024, the Court entered a stay on all claims against the Anywhere defendants in light of Anywhere’s nationwide settlement in the Moerhl and Burnett matters, which would cover the claims against them in this Nosalek matter.” (page 24)
Coldwell Banker Real Estate LLC v. The Bellmarc Group LLC, AC Lawrence Real Estate LLC, Bellmarc Brokerage Midtown Inc., Bellmarc Downtown LLC, Bellmarc East LLC, Bellmarc West LLC, Bellmarc Simone Song Inc., Bellmarc Gramercy/Chelsea Inc., Neil Binder, Nice Idea LLC and All Enterprises, LLC
pendingBrought against a franchisee · filed 2014-12-19 · USDC District of New Jersey · 2:14-cv-07926
“(Civil Action Number 2:14-cv-07926, USDC District of New Jersey). On December 19, 2014, we filed suit against the former franchisee (consisting of multiple entities) and its guarantor for trademark infringements and collection of amounts due.”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Concluded (2)
Jorge Valdes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Coldwell Banker Real Estate LLC
settledThird-party plaintiff · filed 2019-04-11 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2:19-cv-02822
“Jorge Valdes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Coldwell Banker Real Estate LLC, (Case No. 2:19-cv-02822, United States District Court for the Central District of California). On April 11, 2019, plaintiff filed a putative class action against us on behalf of himself and others similarly situated who allegedly received unsolicited autodialed calls without express”Page 20 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“against our affiliated company, Century 21 (Jorge Valdes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Century 21 Real Estate LLC (Case No. 2:19-cv-05411, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey), for a combined amount of $200,000. The settlement was paid on December 30, 2020 and the court entered the order of dismissal on January 28, 2021.” (page 21)
Coldwell Banker Real Estate LLC v. New Alliance Properties, Inc. and Eliazar Felix
settledBrought against a franchisee · filed 2017-02-23 · United States District Court, Central District of California · 2:17-cv-01505-VAP-SK
“Coldwell Banker Real Estate LLC v. New Alliance Properties, Inc. and Eliazar Felix, (Case No. 2:17-cv-01505-VAP-SK, United States District Court, Central District of California). On February 23, 2017, we filed a complaint against this former franchisee and guarantor for trademark infringement and breaches of contract, promissory note and personal guaranty for a total amount of $716,417.35 with”Page 20 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The parties reached a settlement agreement whereby the former franchisee paid us $50,000 in four installments through August 31, 2018.”
Parent, affiliates and predecessor
Pending (8)
John Marino v. Anywhere Real Estate Inc., Michael J. Williams, Fiona Dias, Mathew J. Espe, V. Ann Hailey, Bryson R. Koehler, Joseph Z. Lenz, Duncan Niederauer, Egbert L.J. Perry, Ryan Schneider, Enrique Silva, Chris Terrill and Felicia Williams
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (and its directors and CEO) · filed 2025-12-11 · Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York · Index No. 656398/2025
“John Marino v. Anywhere Real Estate Inc., Michael J. Williams, Fiona Dias, Mathew J. Espe, V. Ann Hailey, Bryson R. Koehler, Joseph Z. Lenz, Duncan Niederauer, Egbert L.J. Perry, Ryan Schneider, Enrique Silva, Chris Terrill and Felicia Williams (Index No. 656398/2025, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, December 11, 2025).”Page 27 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
John McDaniels v. Anywhere Real Estate Inc., Michael J. Williams, Fiona Dias, Matthew J. Espe, V. Ann Hailey, Bryson R. Koehler, Joseph Z. Lenz, Duncan Niederauer, Egbert L. J. Perry, Ryan M. Schneider, Enrique Silva, Chris Terrill, and Felicia Williams
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (and its directors and CEO) · filed 2025-12-10 · Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York · Index No, 656379/2025
“John McDaniels v. Anywhere Real Estate Inc., Michael J. Williams, Fiona Dias, Matthew J. Espe, V. Ann Hailey, Bryson R. Koehler, Joseph Z. Lenz, Duncan Niederauer, Egbert L. J. Perry, Ryan M. Schneider, Enrique Silva, Chris Terrill, and Felicia Williams (Index No, 656379/2025, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, December 10, 2025).”Page 27 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
The Office of the Attorney General of the State of Washington (investigation; Civil Investigative Demand February 2024)
pendingGovernment or regulatory action · certain Real Estate Affiliates of Anywhere · filed 2024
“The Office of the Attorney General of the State of Washington. The Washington Office of the Attorney General is conducting an investigation concerning contracts, combinations, unfair or deceptive practices, unfair methods of competition, or conspiracies in restraint of trade or commerce in the market of services provided by residential real estate brokers to Washington home buyers and sellers and”Page 29 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Batton, Bolton, Brace, Kim, James, Mullis, Bisbicos and Parsons v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc. BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (formerly captioned
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Realogy Holdings Corp. (now Anywhere Real Estate Inc.) · filed 2021-01-25 · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois · 1:21- cv-430
“Batton, Bolton, Brace, Kim, James, Mullis, Bisbicos and Parsons v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc. BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (Case No. 1:21- cv-430, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois) (formerly captioned Leeder).”Page 24 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The Anywhere Opt-In Settlement calls for payment by Anywhere of $9,602,500 upon it becoming effective.” (page 25)
Christopher Moehrl, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc., Re/Max Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (consolidated with Sawbill Strategic, Inc. v. The National Association o
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Realogy Holdings Corp. (now Anywhere Real Estate Inc.) · filed 2019-03-06 · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 1:19-cv-01610
“Christopher Moehrl, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc., Re/Max Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc., (Case No. 1:19-cv-01610, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois).”Page 21 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On October 5, 2023, Anywhere entered into a nationwide Settlement Agreement with the Moehrl and Burnett plaintiffs for $83.5 million (the “Anywhere Settlement Agreement”).”
Ronald Chinitz, Sarah Bumpus, David Gritz, Micheline Peker, Nathan Rowan, Cheryl Rowan, Daniel Caruso, and Paramjit Lalli, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Realogy Holdings Corp., Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC, Realogy Group LLC, Realogy Services Group LLC,
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Realogy Holdings Corp., Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC, Realogy Group LLC, Realogy Services Group LLC, Realogy Brokerage Group LLC (Anywhere Advisors) · filed 2019-06-11 · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division · 3:19-cv- 03309-JD
“Ronald Chinitz, Sarah Bumpus, David Gritz, Micheline Peker, Nathan Rowan, Cheryl Rowan, Daniel Caruso, and Paramjit Lalli, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Realogy Holdings Corp., Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC, Realogy Group LLC, Realogy Services Group LLC, Realogy Brokerage Group LLC (f/k/a NRT LLC), and Mojo Dialing Solutions, LLC (Case No.”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement on July 24, 2025, which the Court heard on January 29, 2026, and for which a ruling remains pending.”
Scott and Rhonda Burnett, Ryan Hendrickson, Jarod Breit, Scott Trupiano, and Jeremy Keel, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, Re/Max LLC and Kel
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Realogy Holdings Corp. (now Anywhere Real Estate Inc.) · filed 2019-04-29 · United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri · 4:19-cv-00332-SRB
“Scott and Rhonda Burnett, Ryan Hendrickson, Jarod Breit, Scott Trupiano, and Jeremy Keel, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, Re/Max LLC and Keller Williams Realty, Inc., (Case No.”Page 22 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On October 5, 2023, Anywhere entered into the nationwide Anywhere Settlement Agreement with the Moehrl and Burnett plaintiffs for $83.5 million.” (page 23)
Homie Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation v. National Association of Realtors, an Illinois non-profit association; Anywhere Real Estate Inc., a Delaware corporation; Keller Williams Realty, Inc., a Texas corporation; HomeServices of America, Inc., a Delaware corporation; HSF Affiliates, LLC, a
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Anywhere Real Estate Inc. · U.S. District Court, Central District of Utah · 2:24-cv-00616
“Homie Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation v. National Association of Realtors, an Illinois non-profit association; Anywhere Real Estate Inc., a Delaware corporation; Keller Williams Realty, Inc., a Texas corporation; HomeServices of America, Inc., a Delaware corporation; HSF Affiliates, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; RE/MAX LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and Wasatch”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On August 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal of its claims. The appeal has been fully briefed, and we are awaiting a schedule from the court for argument.” (page 27)
Concluded (3)
Dean Drulias v. Fiona Dias, Matthew Espe, Bryson Koehler, V. Ann Hailey, Joseph Lenz, Duncan Niederauer, Egbert Perry, Ryan Schneider, Enrique Silva, Sherry Smith, Chris Terrill, Felicia Williams, Michael Williams, Anywhere Real Estate Inc., and Compass, Inc.
settledThird-party plaintiff · Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (with directors, CEO and Compass, Inc.) · filed 2025-12-18 · Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County, General Equity Division · MRS-C-000133-25
“Dean Drulias v. Fiona Dias, Matthew Espe, Bryson Koehler, V. Ann Hailey, Joseph Lenz, Duncan Niederauer, Egbert Perry, Ryan Schneider, Enrique Silva, Sherry Smith, Chris Terrill, Felicia Williams, Michael Williams, Anywhere Real Estate Inc., and Compass, Inc. (Case No. MRS-C-000133-25, Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County, General Equity Division, December 18, 2025).”Page 27 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“In the Drulias case, a settlement in principle was reached among the parties and, on December 28, 2025, a Memorandum of Understanding was executed under which Anywhere or its successors will cause $450,000”
Sheri Dodge and Neil Dodge and Ram Agrawal and Sarita Agrawal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PHH Corporation, Realogy Holdings Corp., et al. (formerly captioned Timothy L. Strader, Sr. and Lester L. Hall, Jr. v. PHH Corporation, et al.)
settledThird-party plaintiff · Realogy Holdings Corp. and certain subsidiaries (with PHH defendants) · filed 2015-11-25 · United States District Court, Central District of California · 8:15-CV-01973
“Sheri Dodge and Neil Dodge and Ram Agrawal and Sarita Agrawal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PHH Corporation, Realogy Holdings Corp., PHH Home Loans LLC, PHH Mortgage Corporation, RMR Financial, LLC, NE Moves Mortgage LLC, PHH Broker Partner Corporation, Realogy Group LLC, Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC, Title Resource Group LLC, West Coast Escrow Company, TRG”Page 28 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On May 19, 2017, the parties held a mediation session, at which they agreed in principle to a settlement of $17M, pursuant to which the Realogy defendants would pay approximately $8.5 million (or one-half of the settlement) and the PHH defendants would pay the remaining $8.5M.”
HUD and FTC joint regulatory investigation of Property I.D. Associates, LLC; HUD lawsuit in the Central District of California (May 23, 2007)
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Realogy Group, NRT, Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage (the Realogy parties); subpoenas also went to the franchisor · filed 2007 · United States District Court, Central District of California
“The Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and the FTC conducted a joint regulatory investigation of the activities of Property I.D. Associates, LLC (“Associates”), a joint venture between Property I.D. Corporation, Cendant Real Estate Services Group LLC and Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Corporation.”Page 29 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“In May 2008, HUD and the Realogy parties agreed to settle the matter with no imposition of fines or penalties and a permanent injunction to refrain from future joint ventures for hazard disclosure reports operated in violation of RESPA. The Settlement Agreement has been fully executed and the Consent Decree and Release were filed with the Court on February 9, 2009.”
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 8.0% 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 | 10 years |
| Allowed renewalsℹ | 0 |
| Territory type | No territory protection |
| Protected territory | No |
| Exclusive territoryℹ | No |
| Online sales rightsℹ | Granted |
| Franchisor can compete | Yes |
| Hire a manager? | Allowed |
| Owner-operator | Optional |
| Right of first refusalℹ | Yes |
| RoFR response window | 120 days |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Termination notice | 30 days |
| Mandatory arbitration | No |
| Jury trial waiver | No |
| Governing law | NJ |
| Litigation count | 15 |
View Item 3 litigation summary
Franchisor as plaintiff in trademark/collection actions against former franchisees; franchisor and parent (Anywhere) as defendants in antitrust commission class actions (Moehrl, Burnett, Nosalek, Batton, Homie), TCPA class action (Chinitz), merger-related shareholder suits, and resolved RESPA/HUD regulatory proceedings. Anywhere entered $83.5M settlement (Moehrl/Burnett) and $9.6M opt-in settlement (Tuccori/Batton).
Items 10, 11
Training & Operations
- Classroom training
- 15 hrs
- On-the-job training
- 0 hrs
- Training location
- Virtually / franchisee location or near headquarters in New Jersey
- Ongoing training
- Optional
- Time to open
- 1 mo
- From signing to launch
- Site selection
- Franchisee selects; franchisor must approve
- Franchisor financing
- Offered
- Item 10
- POS system
- CBCDesk
- Operating tech stack
Items 5 & 11
Franchisor Support
Technology: CBCDesk
Item 20 · call current owners
Franchisee Contacts
142 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 Coldwell Banker Commercial® franchise?
The total investment to open a Coldwell Banker Commercial® franchise ranges from $37K – $554K, 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 Coldwell Banker Commercial® franchise owners earn?
Coldwell Banker Commercial® 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 Coldwell Banker Commercial®?
Coldwell Banker Commercial® is franchised by Coldwell Banker Real Estate LLC. Its parent company is Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC. The ultimate parent named in the FDD is Compass, Inc.. Source: FDD Item 1, 2026 filing.
What is Item 19 in the Coldwell Banker Commercial® 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 Coldwell Banker Commercial® FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is Coldwell Banker Commercial®'s franchise failure rate?
Based on SBA 7(a) loan data, Coldwell Banker Commercial® has a charge-off rate of 0.0% across 13 loans, meaning 0.0% 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 Coldwell Banker Commercial® franchise locations are there?
As of their most recent FDD filing, Coldwell Banker Commercial® has 135 total units in the United States, including 134 franchised units and 1 company-owned units. 25 new units were opened in the latest reporting year.
Is Coldwell Banker Commercial® a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict rates Coldwell Banker Commercial® as a B-grade franchise with a verdict score of 66 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 Coldwell Banker Commercial®, you can request corrections or provide updated information.
Other Real Estate franchises
Compare similar franchise opportunities in the Real Estate 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.