El Pollo Loco Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026
- Investment
- $794K – $2.7M
- Disclosed sales
- $2.2M
- gross sales, not profit
- SBA charge-off
- 6.5%
- on 61 loans
Data from FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records
Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology
El Pollo Loco is a quick-service franchise built on citrus-marinated, fire-grilled chicken and Mexican-style entrees. Franchisees run restaurants with drive-thru and dine-in service, managing grilling, food prep, and staffing.
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026
A El Pollo Loco franchise requires a total initial investment of $794K – $2.7M, including a $40K franchise fee and an ongoing 5.0% royalty[2]. Per the 2026 FDD, average unit revenue was $2.2M[2]. SBA 7(a) loans show a 6.5% charge-off rate across 61 loans[1]. FranchiseVerdict grade: A (Strongest tier), 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 scored8 of 8 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing.
Overview
- Investment
- $794K – $2.7M
- 89th pct Service Resta…
- Avg gross sales
- $2.2M
- Net sales34th pct Service Resta…
- Royalty
- 5.0%
- 12th pct Service Resta…
- Units
- 503
- 89th pct Service Resta…
- SBA charge-off
- 6.5%
- % of SBA 7(a) loans not repaid · median varies by category
Quick verdict · Quick-Service Restaurants · color = vs category peers
Green = favorable by >10% vs Quick-Service Restaurants 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 $794K – $2.7M including a $40K franchise fee, 5.0% ongoing royalty.
- RETURNSAverage unit revenue of $2.2M/year (median $2.1M).
- RISKVerdict A (Strongest tier), verdict score 78/100 (higher is better). SBA loan charge-off rate of 6.5% across 61 loans (near or below the 16% franchise average, based on all SBA 7(a) franchise lending, 2010–2025).
- GROWTHPositive: net +3 franchised outlets in the latest year (11 opened, 1 closed); 4 signed but not yet open (Item 20).
Item 1 · who you're contracting with
The Franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- El Pollo Loco, Inc.
- Parent company
- EPL Intermediate, Inc.
- FDD Item 1, page 6 of the 2026 FDD
- Ultimate parent
- El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc.
- FDD Item 1, page 6 of the 2026 FDD
- Predecessor
- None
- Prior franchisor entity
- CEO title
- Chief Executive Officer
- Elizabeth Williams
- Incorporated in
- Delaware
- HQ
- 575 Anton Blvd., Suite 1100, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
- Auditor
- BDO USA, P.C.
- Audited financials
- Franchisor revenue
- $490.0M
- vs $473.0M prior year
- Management churn noted
- Frequent turnover
- Item 2 disclosed frequent executive changes
Overview
About
- CEO
- Elizabeth Williams
- Headquarters
- CA
- Founded
- 1980
- FDD year
- 2026
- States available
- 9
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost runs 258% above the typical quick-service restaurants franchise.
Source: FDD 2026 · Items 5–7
FDD Item 7 · 2026 filing
Initial investment breakdown
| Cost component | Low | High |
|---|---|---|
| Initial franchise fee | $40K | $40K |
| Working capital (3–6 mo) | $25K | $100K |
| Equipment, build-out, other | $729K | $2.5M |
| Total initial investment | $794K | $2.7M |
Source: El Pollo Loco 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
- $794K – $2.7M
- Bottom third — review vs category
- Liquid capital req'd
- $25K – $100K
- Middle of category vs category
- Franchise fee
- $40K – $40K
- Middle of category vs category
- Royalty
- 5.0%
- typical 6–8%
- Ad fund
- 5.0%
- typical 3–5%
- Total fee load
- 10.0%
- vs 9–13% typical
Ongoing fees · Item 6
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 5.0% of gross sales |
| Marketing / ad fund | 5.0% of net sales |
| Technology fee | $2K |
| Training fee | $500 |
| Transfer fee | $40 |
| Renewal fee | $20K |
| Inventory (initial) | $20K – $25K |
| Total fee load | 10.0% of rev |
What do units actually make?
Average unit sales run 125% above the quick-service restaurants norm.
Reported as net sales, not gross sales
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 El Pollo Loco 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 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
$1.8M
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 El Pollo Loco 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 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 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
Reported as net sales, not gross sales
- Avg gross sales
- $2.2M
- Per unit, per year
- Median gross sales
- $2.1M
Gross sales are revenue before expenses — not profit. Actual owner earnings depend on rent, labor, royalties, marketing fees, and debt service.
- Item 19 type
- Average and median net sales by quartile tier, segmented by drive-thru vs. non-drive-thru restaurants, for franchised, franchisor-owned, and total EPL Restaurants (FY2025)
- Sample size
- 319 outlets
- vs category median 19 · large
- Range (low → high)
- $727K→$5.0MCited, not corroborated — printed on page 87 of the 2026 FDD. Nothing else in our record independently restates or re-derives it.
- Cohort dispersion (min → max)
- Quartile band
- $1.3M→$3.3M
- Bottom 25% → top 25%
- 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 781 Quick-Service Restaurants brands
Operator outlook
What the numbers say
Data-driven interpretation of this brand's financial disclosures, fee structure, and system trajectory.
Unit economics
Average unit generates $2.2M/year in gross sales. Revenue-to-investment ratio: 1.3x.
Fee burden
Total ongoing fee load of 10.0% — above the Quick-Service Restaurants median of 7.5%.
Disclosure
Transparency score 4/10 — this franchisor discloses detailed breakdowns (quartiles, segments, or cohort data). Buyers can model unit economics with higher confidence.
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 Quick-Service Restaurants medians
How El Pollo Loco Compares
Category median of published Quick-Service Restaurants 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
- 503
- Opened
- 11
- Last reporting year
- Closed
- 1
- Terminated
- 0
- Franchisor ended the franchise (per Item 20)
- Non-renewed
- 6
- Term expired, not renewed (per Item 20)
- Turnover rate
- N/A
- Company-owned
- 175
- Corporate units in the system
- % franchised
- 65%
- vs corporate-owned
Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers
- Terminated
- 0
- Not renewed
- 6
- Transferred
- 21
- Reacquired
- 1
- Franchisor bought back
- Signed, not yet open
- 4
- 0.01 per open outlet · Item 20 Table 5
- Projected new
- 17
- Franchisor's next-year forecast
- Transfer rate
- 1.4%
- Owners selling to other franchisees
- Termination rate
- 0.2%
- Franchisor-initiated terminations
- Ceased ops
- 0.2%
- Units that stopped operating
Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.
Item 20 · 4 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
100 current owners across 4 states.
- CA 94
- NV 3
- TX 2
- GA 1
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
- 61
- Loan volume
- $38.7M
- Median loan
- $360K
- 50th percentile
- Charge-off rate
- 6.5%
- on 61 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)
- 93.5%
- 5-yr charge-off
- N/A
- Loans approved 2021+
- Active lenders
- 22
- Defaults
- 3
- Typical loan rate
- 6.5%
- avg rate to borrowers
- Franchised industry avg
- 10.8%
- brand beats franchise avg ↓
- Jobs supported
- 993
- 4.0 per loan
- Lender concentration
- 16%
- top lender's share
Borrower mix: 50% went to startups / new businesses, 50% to established operators
Franchise vs independent — in limited-service restaurants, franchised businesses charge off at 10.8% vs 10.0% for independents — franchising is associated with 8% higher SBA default risk in this category.
Vintage analysis
El Pollo Loco charge-off rate by loan vintage
Top lenders financing El Pollo Loco franchisees
Showing 3 of 22 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 El Pollo Loco from SBA 7(a) FOIA data.
- Principal loss rate
- 0.4%
- Avg SBA guarantee
- 75%
- Avg interest rate
- 6.51%
- Avg chargeoff amount
- $107K
- Lender concentration
- 16.3%
- Job velocity
- 4.0 per $100K
- NAICS benchmark
- 8.7%
- NAICS 722513
- Jobs supported
- 993
Top SBA lendersTop lender holds 16% of loans
| # | Lender | Loans | Volume | Default % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US Metro Bank | 7 | $3.0M | 0.0% |
| 2 | Columbia Bank | 6 | $2.6M | 0.0% |
| 3 | U.S. Bank, National Association | 4 | $1.5M | 0.0% |
| 4 | East West Bank | 3 | $1.8M | 0.0% |
| 5 | Comerica Bank | 2 | $1.2M | 0.0% |
| 6 | Readycap Lending, LLC | 2 | $1.2M | 0.0% |
| 7 | Banc of California | 2 | $281K | 0.0% |
| 8 | Zions Bank, A Division of | 2 | $878K | 0.0% |
| 9 | Popular Bank | 2 | $914K | 50.0% |
| 10 | Bank of America, National Association | 2 | $250K | 0.0% |
Geographic failure vector
| State | Loans | Defaults | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| CACalifornia | 37 | 1 | 2.9% |
| UTUtah | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
| WAWashington | 2 | 0 | -- |
| NVNevada | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| SCSouth Carolina | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
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 6.5% — 59% 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
Litigation (Item 3)
Subject: the franchisor is a named party (defendant).
No pending litigation or franchisor-initiated litigation disclosed. Six concluded matters: (1) Galustyan/Diep shareholder derivative actions re: 2015 alleged misrepresentations, settled/dismissed; (2) Lancaster Lawsuit (Handlers-Bryman/Bryman) re: territorial encroachment, jury verdict for plaintiffs, settled for $2.5M plus protected-territory language; (3) Olvera/Perez/Vega/Gonzalez consolidated CA labor class actions, settled for $16.3M; (4) Turocy/Huston consolidated federal securities class action, settled for $20M; (5) San Bernardino Lawsuit (EPL v. EPL 3766) breach of contract, settled with no payment; (6) EPL v. MIK Food trademark infringement, EPL obtained injunction and fee award.
Largest disclosed settlement: $20,000,000
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None disclosed
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · BDO USA, P.C.
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: Yes
- 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 78 / 100 verdict
- 01MEDStagnant unit growth (0.6% YoY) indicates system maturity or decline, not expansion opportunity
- 02MEDNo disclosed average net income despite $2.2M average revenue raises profitability concerns and suggests Item 19 earnings claims are withheld for a reason
- 03HIGHExtensive multi-front litigation including shareholder derivative actions alleging breach of fiduciary duty, securities fraud, labor law violations, and territorial disputes signals governance and operational problems
- 04MEDHigh initial investment range ($793K-$2.7M) combined with undisclosed profitability and stagnant growth creates unfavorable risk-reward ratio
Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification
Litigation case detail7 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Concluded (4)
El Pollo Loco, Inc. v. MIK Food, Inc., et al.
judgmentBrought against a franchisee · filed 2021-10-08 · United Stated District Court, Central District of California · 8:21-cv-01676-DOC
“El Pollo Loco, Inc. v. MIK Food, Inc., et al. (United Stated District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 8:21-cv-01676-DOC). On October 8, 2021, we initiated a lawsuit against MIK Food, Inc. and its owners, Imtiaz Malik and Sarfraz Tahir Malik, for their unauthorized use of the El Pollo Loco name, marks and system at their restaurant in Santa Barbara, California following the”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On December 21, 2021, the court approved of the parties’ stipulated judgment and permanent injunction that (i) identified us as the prevailing party in the action, (ii) permanently enjoined MIK Food, Inc., its owners and agents from using or displaying, in any manner, the El Pollo Loco name, marks, trade secrets or other intellectual property, and (iii) entitled us to an award of our reasonable”
El Pollo Loco, Inc. v. EPL 3766, Inc.
settledBrought against a franchisee · filed 2016-06-07 · San Bernardino Superior Court · CIVD1S608941
“El Pollo Loco, Inc. v. EPL 3766, Inc., San Bernardino Superior Court (Case No. CIVD1S608941) (the “San Bernardino Lawsuit”). On June 7, 2016, we filed this action against EPL 3766, Inc. (“EPL 3766”), the franchisee owned by the Bryman plaintiffs in the previously-disclosed Lancaster Lawsuit, for claim for breach of contract arising out of EPL”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Neither party paid any money to the other as part of this settlement. The court dismissed the San Bernardino Lawsuit on April 6, 2017 with prejudice.” (page 15)
Janice P. Handlers-Bryman and Michael D. Bryman v. El Pollo Loco, Inc.
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2016-02-09 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles · MC026045
“Janice P. Handlers-Bryman and Michael D. Bryman v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Case No. MC026045) (the “Lancaster Lawsuit”) was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles on February 9, 2016. Plaintiffs brought claims for (i) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (ii) intentional interference with prospective business, and (iii) unfair business”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“on August 21, 2020, we reached an agreement with plaintiffs to settle the action for (i) our payment of $2.5 Million, and (ii) our agreement to include the court-ordered 0.5-mile protected territory language in existing and new free-standing or traditional in-line Franchised Restaurant in California opened within the next 5 years.”
Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., et al
settledThird-party plaintiff · filed 2014 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange · 30 2014 00707367 CU-OE-CXC
“captioned Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., et al (Case No. 30 2014 00707367 CU-OE-CXC) (the “Olvera Action”) on behalf of all hourly employees working at Franchisor Restaurants in California on and after April 10, 2010 alleging certain violations of California labor laws. The claims included failure to pay overtime compensation, provide meal periods and rest breaks, and provide”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On January 24, 2019, we agreed to pay $16.3 Million to the more than 32,000 putative class members in the Olvera, Perez, Vega, and Gonzalez actions to settle all claims for the period from April 12, 2010 to April 1, 2019. The court approved the settlement on January 31, 2020.”
Parent, affiliates and predecessor
Concluded (3)
Diep v. Sather
settledThird-party plaintiff · El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. (EPLH) officers and directors, and Trimaran Pollo Partners, LLC · filed 2016 · Delaware Court of Chancery · 12760-VCL
“On or about September 23, 2016, a second purported EPLH shareholder filed a derivative complaint on behalf of EPLH in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Diep v. Sather, (Case No. 12760-VCL) (“Diep Action”) against the same defendants named in the Galustyan Action. The complaint in the Diep Action asserted substantially the same claims as the Galustyan Action.”Page 12 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The court approved the settlement of $625,000, less plaintiffs’ fees of $156,250, on September 10, 2021, and dismissed all claims brought, or that could have been brought, against Settling Defendants.”
Armen Galustyan v. Sather, et al.
dismissedThird-party plaintiff · El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. (EPLH) officers and directors, and Trimaran Pollo Partners, L.L.C. · filed 2015 · Delaware Court of Chancery · 11676-VCL
“Armen Galustyan v. Sather, et al. (Case No. 11676-VCL) (“Galustyan Action”). The derivative complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties to EPLH and were unjustly enriched when they sold shares of EPLH at artificially inflated prices due to alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding EPL’s comparable store sales in the second quarter of 2015.”Page 12 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The purported EPLH shareholder voluntarily dismissed the action on October 7, 2020.”
Daniel Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al.
settledThird-party plaintiff · El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. (EPLH), officers, Trimaran Pollo Partners, LLC, Trimaran Capital Partners, and Freeman Spogli & Co. · filed 2015-08-24 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 8:15-cv-01343
“Daniel Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv-01343) was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on August 24, 2015, and Ron Huston, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv- 01710) was filed in the same court on October 22, 2015. Both lawsuits named as defendants EPLH, Stephen J. Sather, Laurance”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Following class certification on July 3, 2018, defendants agreed to settle the case by paying plaintiffs $20 Million. On June 23, 2020 an order granting distribution of funds was issued.”
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 10.0% 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 | 20 years |
|---|---|
| Renewal term | 10 years |
| Allowed renewalsℹ | 1 |
| Territory type | Protected territory |
| Protected territory | Yes |
| Exclusive territoryℹ | No |
| 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 | 5 mi |
| Right of first refusalℹ | Yes |
| RoFR response window | 30 days |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Termination notice | 60 days |
| Termination groundsℹ | 18 |
| Curable defaultsℹ | 4 |
| Mandatory arbitration | No |
| Arbitration location | California (mediation first; litigation in California) |
| Jury trial waiver | Yes |
| Governing law | California |
| Litigation count | 7 |
View Item 3 litigation summary
No pending litigation or franchisor-initiated litigation disclosed. Six concluded matters: (1) Galustyan/Diep shareholder derivative actions re: 2015 alleged misrepresentations, settled/dismissed; (2) Lancaster Lawsuit (Handlers-Bryman/Bryman) re: territorial encroachment, jury verdict for plaintiffs, settled for $2.5M plus protected-territory language; (3) Olvera/Perez/Vega/Gonzalez consolidated CA labor class actions, settled for $16.3M; (4) Turocy/Huston consolidated federal securities class action, settled for $20M; (5) San Bernardino Lawsuit (EPL v. EPL 3766) breach of contract, settled with no payment; (6) EPL v. MIK Food trademark infringement, EPL obtained injunction and fee award.
Items 10, 11
Training & Operations
- Classroom training
- 40 hrs
- On-the-job training
- 400 hrs
- Training location
- Near the Support Center (Costa Mesa, CA) and designated Certified Training Restaurants (CTRs)
- Ongoing training
- Required
- Time to open
- 12 mo
- From signing to launch
- Site selection
- Franchisee proposes site; Franchisor (RESAC) has sole right to approve or reject
- Franchisor financing
- Not offered
- Item 10
- POS system
- Oracle Micros (POS/back-office software)
- Operating tech stack
Items 5 & 11
Franchisor Support
Technology: Oracle Micros (POS/back-office software)
Item 20 · call current owners
Franchisee Contacts
100 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 El Pollo Loco franchise?
The total investment to open a El Pollo Loco franchise ranges from $794K – $2.7M, with an initial franchise fee of $40K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).
What do El Pollo Loco franchise owners earn?
According to Item 19 of the El Pollo Loco FDD, the average gross sales per unit is $2.2M. The median is $2.1M. Important context: Reported as net sales, not gross sales. Note: this is gross revenue, not profit. Actual owner earnings vary based on location, operating costs, and management.
Who owns El Pollo Loco?
El Pollo Loco is franchised by El Pollo Loco, Inc.. Its parent company is EPL Intermediate, Inc.. The ultimate parent named in the FDD is El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc.. Source: FDD Item 1, 2026 filing.
What is Item 19 in the El Pollo Loco 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 El Pollo Loco FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is El Pollo Loco's franchise failure rate?
Based on SBA 7(a) loan data, El Pollo Loco has a charge-off rate of 6.5% across 61 loans, meaning 6.5% 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 El Pollo Loco franchise locations are there?
As of their most recent FDD filing, El Pollo Loco has 503 total units in the United States, including 328 franchised units and 175 company-owned units. 11 new units were opened in the latest reporting year.
Is El Pollo Loco a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict rates El Pollo Loco as a A-grade franchise with a verdict score of 78 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 El Pollo Loco, you can request corrections or provide updated information.
Other Quick-Service Restaurants franchises
Compare similar franchise opportunities in the Quick-Service Restaurants 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.