Elevation Burger Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026
- Investment
- $517K – $2.0M
- Disclosed sales
- $1.1M
- gross sales, not profit
- SBA charge-off
- Under 10 loans (3)
Data from FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records
Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology
Elevation Burger is a fast-casual franchise serving burgers made with organic, grass-fed beef, fresh-cut fries, and shakes. Franchisees run the restaurants, managing food prep, staffing, and counter service.
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026
A Elevation Burger franchise requires a total initial investment of $517K – $2.0M, including a $50K franchise fee and an ongoing 6.0% royalty[2]. Per the 2025 FDD, average unit revenue was $1.1M[2]. FranchiseVerdict grade: C (Average), an editorial assessment, not investment advice. Run a live ROI scan →
Sources, dates and evidence
FDD issued: 2025 filing · Data extracted: · Last cited check: · Staleness risk: medium - a newer filing may exist
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
- $517K – $2.0M
- 78th pct Service Resta…
- Avg gross sales
- $1.1M
- Outlet subsetNet sales21st pct Service Resta…
- Royalty
- 6.0%
- 48th pct Service Resta…
- Units
- 32
- 57th pct Service Resta…
- SBA charge-off
- N/A
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 $517K – $2.0M including a $50K franchise fee, 6.0% ongoing royalty.
- RETURNSAverage unit revenue of $1.1M/year (median $739K) (reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system).
- RISKVerdict C (Average), verdict score 38/100 (higher is better).
- GROWTHNegative: net -3 franchised outlets in the latest year (1 opened, 4 closed) (Item 20).
- DECLINESystem contracting at -11.1% CAGR over 3 years. Investigate whether closures are franchisor-driven (consolidation) or franchisee-driven (economics).
Item 1 · who you're contracting with
The Franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- EB Franchises, LLC
- Parent company
- FAT Brands, Inc.
- FDD Item 1, page 9 of the 2025 FDD
- Ultimate parent
- Fog Cutter Holdings LLC
- FDD Item 1, page 9 of the 2025 FDD
- Predecessor
- Elevation Franchise Ventures LLC
- Prior franchisor entity
- CEO title
- President and Chief Executive Officer
- Taylor Wiederhorn
- Incorporated in
- DE
- HQ
- 9720 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500, Beverly Hills, California 90212
- Auditor
- Macias Gini & O'Connell LLP
- Audited financials
- Franchisor revenue
- $1.5M
- vs $2.1M prior year
- Management churn noted
- Frequent turnover
- Item 2 disclosed frequent executive changes
Same owner · FDD Item 1, page 9
12 other brands on this site name Fog Cutter Holdings LLC as parent or ultimate parent in their own FDD.
- Buffalo’s CafeB
- FatburgerD
- Fazoli'sC
- GREAT AMERICAN COOKIESA
- HOT DOG ON A STICKB
- Hurricane Grill & Wings / Hurricane Burgers Tacos WingsB
- Johnny RocketsD
- Marble Slab CreameryC
- Native Grill and WingsB
- PretzelmakerB
- Round Table PizzaB
- Twin PeaksA
Portfolio: FAT Brands
Grouped by the owner's name as each filing prints it (this page: the 2025 FDD). Spelling variants of the same group may be listed apart; a brand is never grouped with an owner its filing does not name.
Overview
About
- CEO
- Taylor Wiederhorn
- Headquarters
- CA
- Founded
- 2008
- FDD year
- 2025
- States available
- 5
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost runs 158% above the typical quick-service restaurants franchise.
Source: FDD 2025 · Items 5–7
FDD Item 7 · 2025 filing
Initial investment breakdown
| Cost component | Low | High |
|---|---|---|
| Initial franchise fee | $50K | $50K |
| Working capital (3–6 mo) | $25K | $40K |
| Equipment, build-out, other | $442K | $1.9M |
| Total initial investment | $517K | $2.0M |
Source: Elevation Burger 2025 FDD, Items 5 and 7[2]. “Equipment, build-out, other” is computed as total minus disclosed line items above.
Item 7 · what it costs to open + operate
The Vitals
- Total investment
- $517K – $2.0M
- Bottom third — review vs category
- Liquid capital req'd
- $25K – $40K
- Middle of category vs category
- Franchise fee
- $50K – $50K
- Bottom third — review vs category
- Royalty
- 6.0%
- 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 | 6.0% of net sales |
| Marketing / ad fund | 2.0% of net sales |
| Technology fee | $840 |
| Training fee | $33K |
| Transfer fee | $15K |
| Renewal fee | $20K |
| Inventory (initial) | $7K – $10K |
| Total fee load | 8.0% of rev |
What do units actually make?
Average unit sales run 11% above the quick-service restaurants norm.
Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system
Reported as net sales, not gross sales
Source: FDD 2025 · 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 Elevation Burger 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
$1.3M
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 Elevation Burger 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: 2025 FDD
Financial Performance
Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system
Reported as net sales, not gross sales
- Avg gross sales
- $1.1M
- Per unit, per year
- Median gross sales
- $739K
Gross sales are revenue before expenses — not profit. Actual owner earnings depend on rent, labor, royalties, marketing fees, and debt service.
- Item 19 type
- net sales
- Sample size
- 8 outlets
- vs category median 19 · small
- Range (low → high)
- $604K→$2.2MCited, not corroborated — printed on page 69 of the 2025 FDD. Nothing else in our record independently restates or re-derives it.
- Cohort dispersion (min → max)
- Reporting year
- 2024
- Fiscal year the figures cover
- Source filing
- FDD 2025
- Disclosed in the 2025 filing, covering 2024
- Transparency
- 7 / 10
- vs category median 4 / 10 · above
Compared against 781 Quick-Service Restaurants brands
Revenue is only 0.9x the investment. This means each unit may take 5+ years to recoup the initial outlay at typical margins.
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 $1.1M/year in gross sales. Median is $739K — top performers pull the average up, so a typical unit earns less. Revenue-to-investment ratio: 0.9x. Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system.
Fee burden
Total ongoing fee load of 8.0% (near the Quick-Service Restaurants median).
Disclosure
Transparency score 7/10 — this franchisor discloses detailed breakdowns (quartiles, segments, or cohort data). Buyers can model unit economics with higher confidence.
Operator retention
System contracting at -11.1% CAGR over 3 years. Investigate whether closures are franchisor-driven consolidation or franchisee exits.
Multi-unit rate
Only 20% 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 Quick-Service Restaurants medians
How Elevation Burger 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 2025 · Item 20
Unit growth
Item 20 · unit dynamics
The Growth Chart
- Total units
- 32
- Opened
- 1
- Last reporting year
- Closed
- 4
- Terminated
- 0
- Franchisor ended the franchise (per Item 20)
- Non-renewed
- 0
- Term expired, not renewed (per Item 20)
- Turnover rate
- 34.4%
- Company-owned
- 0
- Corporate units in the system
- % franchised
- 100%
- vs corporate-owned
- Multi-unit owners
- 20.0%
- Net growth (3-yr)
- -11.1%
- Net unit change over 3 years
- 3-yr CAGR
- -11.1%
- Compounded over last 3 years
Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers
- Terminated
- 0
- Not renewed
- 0
- Transferred
- 0
- Reacquired
- 0
- Franchisor bought back
- Signed, not yet open
- 0
- 0.00 per open outlet · Item 20 Table 5
- Projected new
- 2
- Franchisor's next-year forecast
- Ceased ops
- 12.5%
- Units that stopped operating
Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.
Item 20 · 7 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
15 current owners across 7 states.
- MD 3
- PA 3
- VA 3
- ME 2
- NY 2
- CA 1
- DC 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 loan disclosures. This brand has only 3 7(a) loans on file; statistical reliability is limited below 10 loans.
- Total loans
- 3
- Loan volume
- $1.7M
- Median loan
- $600K
- 50th percentile
- Charge-off rate
- Under 10 loans (3)
- Insufficient SBA coverage: 3 loans, rate hidden below 10
Historical SBA 7(a) lending data, not predictive of future performance. How SBA charge-off rates are calculated
- Repayment rate (PIF)
- Under 10 loans (3)
- 5-yr charge-off
- Under 10 loans (3)
- Loans approved 2021+
- Active lenders
- 3
- Defaults
- N/A
Explore lender portfolios on Bank Reports or regional data on State Reports.
What could kill this investment?
Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA · FDD Items 3, 21
Risk analysis
FranchiseVerdict rating + FDD Items 3, 4, 8, 16, 21
Risk & Legal
Elevation Burger operates within a contracting franchise system under litigation-prone parent company with regulatory compliance failures, undisclosed profitability metrics, and deteriorating unit economics.
Litigation (Item 3)
Subject: the franchisor is a named party (defendant).
1 pending securities class action (Kates v. FAT Brands 2024). 7 concluded matters: In re FAT Brands Securities Litigation (settled $3M); 2x Virginia SCC v. FBNA registration violations (settled); Shahi v. FBNA (franchise rescission, dismissed 2021); P&K Food Market v. Buffalo's Franchise Concepts (dismissed 2019); Rojany/Alden consolidated securities litigation (settled $50K); Vignola v. FAT Brands securities litigation (settled $75K).
Largest disclosed settlement: $2,500,000
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None disclosed
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · Macias Gini & O'Connell LLP
Franchisor revenue (Item 21)
Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)
Franchisor EB Franchises LLC total revenue for fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 was $1,456,956 (disclosed in Item 8; none derived from required purchases or leases from franchisees). Audited consolidated balance sheet and statement of operations figures (net worth/member's equity, total assets, liabilities, net income) are not present in this text extract — only the independent auditor's opinion letter (Macias Gini & O'Connell LLP, dated April 11, 2025) was captured.
ⓘ 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: No
- Must buy proprietary products: Yes
- Restricted to system-approved products: Yes
- Can negotiate own supplier terms: No
Score breakdown · what drove the 38 / 100 verdict
- 01MEDUnit count declined 8.6% YoY (36 units) indicating system contraction and potential viability concerns
- 02MINORParent company FAT Brands facing active securities class action lawsuits with officer involvement suggesting corporate governance/transparency issues
- 03MEDNet Income not disclosed in FDD Item 19 makes ROI analysis impossible and prevents informed investment decisions
- 04MINORRegulatory settlement with Virginia over franchise registration and financial reporting inaccuracies indicates compliance failures and potential misrepresentation to franchisees
- 05MINORHigh investment range ($517K-$1.99M) combined with declining unit count suggests franchisees are struggling to achieve adequate returns
- 06MINOR6% royalty on average $1.08M revenue ($64,800 annually) represents meaningful ongoing cost in contracting system
Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification
Litigation case detail8 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
Parent, affiliates and predecessor
Pending (1)
Mitchell Kates v. FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth J. Kuick and Robert G. Rosen
pendingThird-party plaintiff · FAT Brands, Inc. (ultimate parent), with officers Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth J. Kuick and Robert G. Rosen as co-defendants · filed 2024-06-07 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2:24-cv-04775-MWF-MAA
“On June 7, 2024, plaintiff Mitchell Kates, a putative investor in FAT, filed a putative class action lawsuit against FAT, Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth J. Kuick and Robert G. Rosen, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “1934 Act”), alleging that the defendants are r”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Concluded (7)
Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. State Corporation Commission v. Fatburger North America, Inc. (No. SEC-2022-0042)
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Fatburger North America, Inc. ('FBNA') · filed 2025 · Virginia State Corporation Commission (Division of Securities and Retail Franchising) · SEC-2022-0042
“Franchising (the “Division”) that Fatburger North America, Inc., when seeking an exemption from the registration requirements of the Virginia Retail Franchising Act, incorrectly stated its total stockholder’s equity on its fiscal year 2022 balance sheet that it submitted to the Division of Securities and Retail Franchising. With”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Without admitting or denying the allegations, FBNA made an offer of settlement in the amount of Five thousand Dollars ($5,000) in civil penalty and Five Hundred Dollars ($500) to defray the costs of investigation. The Division accepted the settlement and enter”
Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. State Corporation Commission v. Fatburger North America, Inc.
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Fatburger North America, Inc. ('FBNA') · filed 2023 · Virginia State Corporation Commission (Division of Securities and Retail Franchising) · SEC-2022-00034
“This matter involves allegations by the Virginia State Corporation Commission’s Division of Securities and Retail Franchising that Fatburger North America, Inc., offered and sold 3 Virginia franchises at a time when it was not effectively registered in Virginia between December 2020 through August 2021. FBNA reached a settlement”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“FBNA reached a settlement in principle in May 2023, without admitting or denying the allegations, and agreed: (a) to offer the affected franchisees an opportunity to rescind their franchises; (b) to pay $27,000 to the Commonwealth of Virginia; and (3) not to violate the Virginia franchise law in the”
Robert J. Matthews, et al., v. FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Rebecca Hershinger and Ken Kuick
settledThird-party plaintiff · FAT Brands, Inc., with officers Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Rebecca Hershinger and Ken Kuick as co-defendants · filed 2022-03-18 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2:22-cv-01820
“On March 18, 2022, plaintiff Robert J. Matthews, a putative investor in the Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Rebecca Hershinger and Ken Kuick, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “1934 Act”), allegin”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Pursuant to the settlement, FAT agreed to pay on behalf of the defendants $2,500,000 in cash and $500,000 in Class A common stock of FAT to the class plaintiffs, the plaintiffs released all claims against the defendants, and the case was dismissed wi”
Ieman Shahi vs. Fatburger North America, Inc., Andrew Alan Wiederhorn, Taylor Andrew Wiederhorn, et al
dismissedBrought by a franchisee · Fatburger North America, Inc., with Andrew Alan Wiederhorn and Taylor Andrew Wiederhorn as co-defendants · filed 2019-07-08 · Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles · 19STCV23772
“On July 8, 2019, Ieman Shahi (“Shahi”) filed a complaint against FBNA as well as Andrew A. Wiederhorn and Taylor A. Wiederhorn. The Court dismissed Andrew and Taylor Wiederhorn from the lawsuit on January 27, 2021. Shahi sought rescission of an international Multi-Unit Restaurant Agreement entered into by Shahi and FBNA in Octob”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“FBNA filed a cross complaint on April 13, 2020 asserting that Shahi breached the international Multi-Unit Restaurant Agreement. The case was dismissed on October 21, 2021 P&K Food Market, In”
Adam Vignola, et al. v. FAT Brands Inc., et al.
dismissedThird-party plaintiff · FAT Brands Inc. and the Original Defendants (its officers, directors and affiliates) · filed 2018-08-24 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2:18-cv-07469
“On August 24, 2018, the Original Defendants were named as defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit entitled Vignola v. FAT Brands, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-07469-PSG-PLA, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The allegations and claims for relief asserted in Vignola were substa”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On September 25, 2020, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release pursuant to which lead plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their individual claims against defendants with prejudice in exchange for a payment by or on behalf of defendant”
Eric Rojany, et al. v. FAT Brands Inc., et al.
dismissedThird-party plaintiff · FAT Brands Inc., its officers and directors (Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, James Neuhauser, Edward H. Rensi, Marc L. Holtzman, Squire Junger, Silvia Kessel, Jeff Lotman), Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc. a · filed 2018-06-07 · Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles · BC708539
“Case No. BC708539, filed on June 7, 2018 against FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, James Neuhauser, Edward H. Rensi, Marc L. Holtzman, Squire Junger, Silvia Kessel, Jeff Lotman, Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc., and Tripoint Global Equities, LLC (collectively, the “Original Defendants”). On August 2, 2018, the Original”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On January 6, 2021, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release pursuant to which plaintiff agreed to dismiss his individual claims against defendants with prejudice in exchange for a payment by or on behalf of defendants of $50,00”
P&K Food Market, Inc. vs. Buffalo's Franchise Concepts, Inc., Fog Cutter Capital Group, Shaun Curtis, Andy Wiederhorn et al.
dismissedBrought by a franchisee · Buffalo's Franchise Concepts, Inc. and Fog Cutter Capital Group, with Shaun Curtis and Andy Wiederhorn as co-defendants · filed 2018-07-13 · Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles · 18STLC09534
“On July 13, 2018, P&K Food Market, Inc. (“P&K”) filed a complaint against Buffalo’s Franchise Concepts, Inc., Fog Cutter Capital Group, Shaun Curtis, and Andy Wiederhorn for Breach of Contract, Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Unlawful Offer and Sale of Franchise By Means of Untrue Statements or Omissions of Material Fact Under”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The case was dismissed on February 13, 2019.”
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 2025 · Items 11, 12, 17
FDD Items 12, 15, 17 · continued from Risk & Legal
Contract & Territory Detail
| Initial term | 15 years |
|---|---|
| Renewal term | 10 years |
| Allowed renewalsℹ | 2 |
| Territory type | Protected territory |
| Protected territory | Yes |
| Exclusive territoryℹ | No |
| Territory radius | 1 mi |
| 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 |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Termination notice | 10 days |
| Mandatory arbitration | Yes |
| Arbitration location | Los Angeles, California |
| Jury trial waiver | No |
| Governing law | CA |
| Litigation count | 8 |
View Item 3 litigation summary
1 pending securities class action (Kates v. FAT Brands 2024). 7 concluded matters: In re FAT Brands Securities Litigation (settled $3M); 2x Virginia SCC v. FBNA registration violations (settled); Shahi v. FBNA (franchise rescission, dismissed 2021); P&K Food Market v. Buffalo's Franchise Concepts (dismissed 2019); Rojany/Alden consolidated securities litigation (settled $50K); Vignola v. FAT Brands securities litigation (settled $75K).
Items 10, 11
Training & Operations
- Classroom training
- 44 hrs
- On-the-job training
- 256 hrs
- Training location
- Beverly Hills, CA (corporate offices or certified training restaurants)
- Ongoing training
- Required
- Field support
- 422 hrs/yr
- On-site visits per year
- Time to open
- 4 mo
- From signing to launch
- Site selection
- franchisee with franchisor approval; must use designated/approved real estate broker
- Franchisor financing
- Not offered
- Item 10
Items 5 & 11
Franchisor Support
Item 20 · call current owners
Franchisee Contacts
15 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 Elevation Burger franchise?
The total investment to open a Elevation Burger franchise ranges from $517K – $2.0M, with an initial franchise fee of $50K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).
What do Elevation Burger franchise owners earn?
According to Item 19 of the Elevation Burger FDD, the average gross sales per unit is $1.1M. The median is $739K. Important context: Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system; 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 Elevation Burger?
Elevation Burger is franchised by EB Franchises, LLC. Its parent company is FAT Brands, Inc.. The ultimate parent named in the FDD is Fog Cutter Holdings LLC. Source: FDD Item 1, 2025 filing.
What is Item 19 in the Elevation Burger 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 Elevation Burger FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is Elevation Burger's franchise failure rate?
SBA 7(a) loan charge-off data is not available for Elevation Burger (fewer than 10 loans on file). Charge-off rates are one way to gauge franchise risk, but not all franchise loans go through the SBA program. We recommend reviewing turnover and closure data in the FDD and speaking with current franchisees.
How many Elevation Burger franchise locations are there?
As of their most recent FDD filing, Elevation Burger has 32 total units in the United States, including 32 franchised units and 0 company-owned units. 1 new units were opened in the latest reporting year.
Is Elevation Burger a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict rates Elevation Burger as a C-grade franchise with a verdict score of 38 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 Elevation Burger, 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.