Skip to main content
FranchiseVerdict
Engel & Völkers logo

Engel & Völkers Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026

Real EstateNYFranchising since 2011
BAbove averageAbove average59/100Editorial grade from public filings; not investment advice.
Investment
$92K – $289K
Disclosed sales
not disclosed
SBA charge-off
Under 10 loans (8)

Investment, fees, disclosed sales, units, SBA record and risk, as one PDF. Free; no spam; one click to unsubscribe.

FV-00859FDD 2025Data QualityExcellent86%Pre-opening
Manager-run OKYes: Exclusive territory

Data from FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records

Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology

Engel & Volkers is a luxury residential real-estate brokerage franchise with a global, premium brand. Franchisees run high-end shops recruiting advisors and marketing luxury properties, earning from commissions.

FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026

A Engel & Völkers franchise requires a total initial investment of $92K – $289K, including a $35K franchise fee and an ongoing 6.0% royalty[2]. This franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that. FranchiseVerdict grade: B (Above average), an editorial assessment, not investment advice. Run a live ROI scan →

Sources, dates and evidence

FDD issued: · Data extracted: · Last cited check: · Staleness risk: medium - issued 12 to 24 months ago; a newer filing is likely on file

Evidence: strong✓ Investment (Item 7)✓ Item 19 status✓ Units and owners (Item 20)✗ SBA loan coverage✓ Litigation (Item 3)✓ Financial statements (Item 21)✓ Franchisor identityhow this is scored5 of 5 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing.

Overview

Investment
$92K – $289K
65th pct Real Estate
Avg gross sales
N/A
Royalty
6.0%
24th pct Real Estate
Units
190
64th pct Real Estate
SBA charge-off
N/A

Quick verdict · Real Estate · color = vs category peers

Total Investment
$92K – $289K
Median $133K
above median ↑, worse than category
Franchise Fee
$35K – $35K
Median $30K
above median ↑, worse than category
Liquid Capital Req'd
N/A
Median $22K
Avg Revenue
Not disclosed
Franchisor makes none
Royalty Rate
6.0%
Median 6.0%
near median
Ongoing Fees
8.0% of rev
Median 7.5%
near median
SBA Charge-Off Rate
Under 10 loans (8)
Insufficient SBA coverage: 8 loans, rate hidden below 10
System Size
190 units
Median 70 units
above median ↑, better than category
Turnover Rate
7.9%
Median 7.5%
near median
Territory
Exclusive
No other outlet of the brand may open inside it
Owner-Operator
Optional
Can hire a manager
Litigation
9 cases
Review carefully

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 $92K – $289K including a $35K franchise fee, 6.0% ongoing royalty.
  • RETURNSThis franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that.
  • RISKVerdict B (Above average), verdict score 59/100 (higher is better).
  • GROWTHNegative: net -6 franchised outlets in the latest year (9 opened, 15 closed); 5 signed but not yet open (Item 20).
  • DATAThis 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.

Item 1 · who you're contracting with

The Franchisor

Corporate structure & franchisor financials
Legal entity
Engel & Völkers Americas, Inc.
Parent company
Engel & Völkers Residential GmbH (E&V Residential)
FDD Item 1, page 9 of the 2025 FDD
Ultimate parent
Permira VII Inv. Platform S.à.r.l
FDD Item 1, page 9 of the 2025 FDD
CEO title
President and Chief Executive Officer
Stuart Siegel
Incorporated in
DE
HQ
430 Park Avenue, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10022
Auditor
Citrin Cooperman & Company, LLP
Audited financials
Franchisor revenue
$27.9M
vs $26.2M prior year

Overview

About

CEO
Stuart Siegel
Headquarters
NY
Founded
2005
FDD year
2025
States available
40

Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?

Entry cost runs 43% above the typical real estate franchise.

Total investment (Item 7)$92K – $289KCited, not corroborated — printed on page 33 of the 2025 FDD. Nothing else in our record independently restates or re-derives it.
Franchise fee$35,000Verified — printed on page 22 of the 2025 FDD (Item 5), and another item of the same filing prints the same figure on a labelled row, which is an independent restatement.
Royalty6.0%Cited, not corroborated — printed on page 24 of the 2025 FDD (Item 6). Nothing else in our record independently restates or re-derives it.
Ad fund2.0%Cited, not corroborated — printed on page 29 of the 2025 FDD (Item 6). Nothing else in our record independently restates or re-derives it.
Working capitalNot extracted

Source: FDD 2025 · Items 5–7

Full Item 7 breakdown12 line items

Initial investment breakdown

Item 7 initial investment line items
Line itemLowHigh
Initial Franchise Fee$35K$35K
Training Fees (See Note 2)$690$6K
Training Fee for brokerage manager (See Note 16)$0$2K
Travel and Accommodation Expenses While Training (See Note 3)$5K$10K
License and Trade Requirements (See Note 5)——
Furniture, Equipment and Signage (See Note 6)$15K$120K
MLS Research/Set Up Fee (See Note 7)——
Advertising (See Note 8)$4K$15K
Insurance (See Note 9)$5K$8K
Grand Opening (See Note 10)$5K$25K
Printing and Promotional Supplies (See Note 11)$3K$8K
Additional Funds – 3 Months (See Note )$20K$60K
Total initial investment$92K$289K

Line items extracted from FDD Item 7. Ranges reflect the franchisor's stated low and high per line. Total is the sum of line-item lows / highs — actual costs may fall outside this range depending on market and build-out scope.

Item 7 · what it costs to open + operate

The Vitals

Total investment
$92K – $289K
Middle of category vs category
Liquid capital req'd
N/A
Cash you must have on hand
Franchise fee
$35K – $35K
Middle of category vs category
Royalty
6.0%
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

Engel & Völkers: Item 6 recurring fees
FeeAmount
Royalty6.0% of gross sales
Marketing / ad fund2.0% of gross sales
Training fee$690
Transfer fee$3K
Renewal fee$18K
Total fee load8.0% of rev
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
Blue values = direct from FDD (Item 7 investment, Item 19 revenue, Item 6 fees)Not set = no filing supplies it and we will not substitute one. Enter your own

Engel & Völkers 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 Engel & Völkers unit return on the cash you put in?

From FDDNot set — you supply itYou overrode an FDD value
Revenue · per unit, per yearnot set
Item 19 not disclosed. Enter your own revenue assumption
Franchisor take · royalty + ad fundFDD
typ 6–8%
typ 3–5%
Operating costs · not in any FDDnot set

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.

Total invested capital · what you put in to openFDD
FDD Item 7: $92K–$289K (midpoint used)
Item 7 didn't break this out. Enter your pre-opening cash burn

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, other operating costs and working capital, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.


Store EBITDA · annual
—
EBITDA margin
—
Total invested
—
Payback
—
Single-unit only. A multi-unit portfolio gives up roughly 5–15% of this to shared services (corporate G&A) before reaching the ~10-unit break-even point.

These models are for research and scenario planning only. Not investment advice. Actual results depend on your specific location, management, and market conditions. Consult a franchise attorney and accountant before signing any franchise agreement.

Item 19 · Source: 2025 FDD

Financial Performance

No financial performance representation

This franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that.

Item 20 of the FDD lists current and former franchisees; asking them directly is the standard way to fill this gap.

Showing the headline figures — all 124 extracted fields are in the Full FDD Report · $19 →

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 expanding at 8.0% CAGR over 3 years across 190 units — operators are staying and new ones are joining.

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 Engel & Völkers Compares

Metric
Engel & Völkers
Category median
vs median
Investment
$190K
$133Kmiddle half $78K–$190K · n=89
Above median, worse than category
Revenue
N/A
$384Kmiddle half $254K–$616K · n=12
N/A
Unit Count
190
70middle half 27–191 · n=89
Above median, better than category

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?

Total units190Verified — printed on page 73 of the 2025 FDD (Item 20), and the table's own arithmetic closes on it three ways.
3-yr growth-3.1% (worth scrutinizing)
Turnover rate7.9% (favorable vs category)

Source: FDD 2025 · Item 20

Unit growth

Item 20 · unit dynamics

The Growth Chart

Total units
190
Opened
9
Last reporting year
Closed
15
Terminated
3
Franchisor ended the franchise (per Item 20)
Non-renewed
1
Term expired, not renewed (per Item 20)
Turnover rate
7.9%
Company-owned
0
Corporate units in the system
% franchised
100%
vs corporate-owned
Net growth (3-yr)
-3.1%
Net unit change over 3 years
3-yr CAGR
+8.0%
Compounded over last 3 years

Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers

Terminated
3
Not renewed
1
Signed, not yet open
5
0.03 per open outlet · Item 20 Table 5
Projected new
11
Franchisor's next-year forecast
2022
176
Franchised units
2023
196+20
Franchised units
2024
190-6
Franchised units

Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.

Item 20 · 40 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).

AK
ME
VT
NH
MA
RI
CT
NY
NJ
PA
DE
MD
DC
WA
OR
CA
NV
ID
MT
WY
UT
CO
AZ
NM
ND
SD
NE
KS
OK
TX
MN
IA
MO
AR
LA
WI
IL
MS
TN
MI
IN
KY
AL
OH
WV
GA
VA
NC
SC
FL
HI
Active operators · 40 states
No contacts on file

States derived from franchisee contact records (FDD Item 20). Shows states with at least one current operator on file. Full state registration data (Item 12) will appear on a future FDD refresh.

Available to sell in · Item 12

  • California
  • Washington

States where the franchisor is registered to sell new franchises (FDD registration filings).

Where the owners are · Item 20 owner list

204 current owners across 39 states; 4 former (terminated, transferred or not renewed) listed separately.

  • FL 38
  • CA 30
  • MT 13
  • MA 12
  • CO 11
  • TX 7
  • AZ 6
  • GA 6
  • NY 6
  • AL 5
  • MN 5
  • NC 5
  • +27 more states

Counts only, from the list the franchisor prints in Item 20. Names and phone numbers are for your own due diligence and are not shown here.

SBA loan performance

Government records

SBA Loan Data

Aggregated from SBA loan disclosures. This brand has only 8 7(a) loans on file; statistical reliability is limited below 10 loans.

Total loans
8
Loan volume
$1.2M
Median loan
$154K
average
Charge-off rate
Under 10 loans (8)
Insufficient SBA coverage: 8 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 (8)
5-yr charge-off
Under 10 loans (8)
Loans approved 2021+
Active lenders
7
Defaults
N/A

Explore lender portfolios on Bank Reports or regional data on State Reports.

What could kill this investment?

SBA charge-offUnder 10 loans (8)
Verdict score59/100 (higher is better)
Litigation9 cases
Auditor going-concern doubtNo (favorable vs category)

Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA · FDD Items 3, 21

Risk analysis

FranchiseVerdict rating + FDD Items 3, 4, 8, 16, 21

Risk & Legal

BAbove average59Verdict score 59/100

Engel & Völkers presents elevated risk due to shrinking franchisee base, undisclosed financials, active multi-jurisdiction litigation, and regulatory exposure in an inherently cyclical industry.

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.

High confidence±6 pts
5365

Litigation (Item 3)

Subject: the franchisor is a named party (defendant).

3 pending cases (antitrust class actions re broker commissions: Gibson consolidated / Lopez), 1 pending (EVFL v. EVA breach of contract); 4 concluded cases. Settled Gibson for $6.9M and Lopez for $800K.

Largest disclosed settlement: $6,900,000

Bankruptcy (Item 4)

None disclosed

Audited financials (Item 21)

Yes · Citrin Cooperman & Company, LLP

Franchisor revenue (Item 21)

Yr 1: $27.9MYr 2: $26.2MNon-royalty: $2.7M

Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)

Total revenues comprise total franchise revenues (franchise royalties, marketing and brand advisor fees, admission fees) of $25,200,315 plus fees from other services of $2,664,353 for FY2024 (consolidated, Engel & Volkers Americas, Inc. and Subsidiary).

ⓘ 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

Score breakdown · what drove the 59 / 100 verdict

  1. 01MINORDeclining unit count (-0.8% YoY) signals system contraction and potential franchisee dissatisfaction
  2. 02HIGHMultiple active litigation streams (antitrust, breach of contract, no-poaching investigation) create legal and operational uncertainty
  3. 03MEDNo disclosed average revenue or net income data (absent Item 19) prevents legitimate ROI assessment and suggests franchisor may be hiding unfavorable unit economics
  4. 04MINORTiered royalty structure (6% to 3.75%) indicates potential performance-based penalties or variable profitability tiers that may disadvantage newer/smaller franchisees
  5. 05MEDReal estate brokerage model is commission-dependent and cyclical; vulnerable to market downturns and economic sensitivity
  6. 06HIGHAntitrust litigation specifically regarding 'broker commission rules' suggests franchisor practices may be under regulatory scrutiny and subject to forced change

Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification

Showing the headline figures — all 124 extracted fields are in the Full FDD Report · $19 →

Full litigation history from the FDD (Items 3 and 4) →

Litigation case detail9 matters · Item 3

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Pending (3)

  • Aleandro Lopez, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. Engel & Volkers, Engel & Volkers America, Inc., Live & Play LLC d/b/a Engel & Voelkers Chicago, Jennifer Ames Chicago, Inc., d/b/a Ames Group Chicago, Side, Inc., the Keyes Company, and Illustrated Properties, LLC

    pending

    Third-party plaintiff · filed 2025-04-17 · Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division · 1:25-cv-04207 (consolidated for final approval with Tuccori v. At World Properties, LLC, 1:24-cv-150)

    “Aleandro Lopez, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. Engel & Volkers, Engel & Volkers America, Inc., Live & Play LLC d/b/a Engel & Voelkers Chicago, Jennifer Ames Chicago, Inc., d/b/a Ames Group Chicago, Side, Inc., the Keyes Company, and Illustrated Properties, LLC (Case No. 1:25-cv-04207) in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“The Settlement Agreement includes a total monetary settlement amount of $800,000 to be paid by us into the qualified settlement fund over a period of time. The Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement on October 15, 2025, and we are currently awaiting final approval.” (page 19)

  • Engel & Voelkers Florida Residential LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company v. Engel & Völkers Americas, Inc.

    pending

    Brought by a franchisee · filed 2025-12-17 · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 1:25-cv-10474-LGS

    “Engel & Voelkers Florida Residential LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company v. Engel & Völkers Americas, Inc. (1:25-cv-10474-LGS). On December 17, 2025, Engel & Voelkers Florida Residential LLC (“EVFL”) filed a civil action against Engel & Völkers Americas, Inc. (“EVA”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
  • Don Gibson, Lauren Criss, John Meiners, and Daniel Umpa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Association of Realtors, Homeservices of America, Inc., et al. (including Engel & Volkers, Engel & Volkers Americas, Inc.)

    pending

    Third-party plaintiff · filed 2024 · United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division · 4:23-cv-00788-SRB (consolidation with 4:23-cv-00945-SRB)

    “On April 23, 2024 plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint against us and the above named defendants claiming an antitrust conspiracy by and between the National Association of Realtors® (“NAR”) and residential real estate brokerages to increase broker compensation at the expense of property sellers.”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“Although we vigorously dispute Plaintiffs’ allegations, we agreed to settle the case on June 18, 2024 and entered into a settlement agreement dated July 12, 2024 (“Settlement Agreement”) that includes a total monetary settlement amount of $6.9 million to be paid by us into the qualified settlement fund.”

Concluded (3)

  • EVCS, LLC and Amie Streater v. Engel & Völkers Americas, Inc., Curtin Stinson, Luxury Tucson, Inc., Turner Associates, LLC, and IRE Inc.

    settled

    Brought by a franchisee · filed 2023-10-26 · District Court, County of El Paso, State of Colorado · 2023CV32068

    “EVCS, LLC and Amie Streater v. Engel & Völkers Americas, Inc., Curtin Stinson, Luxury Tucson, Inc., Turner Associates, LLC, and IRE Inc., Case No. 2023CV32068 In the District Court, County of El Paso, State of Colorado.”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“On November 29, 2024 the plaintiffs and we entered into a settlement agreement by which all claims between plaintiffs and us were settled and we paid to plaintiffs a total amount of $200,000. On January 2, 2025 the court dismissed us with prejudice from the action.” (page 20)

  • Jessie Rodriguez and Cal American Homes and Realty v. Engel & Volkers Americas, Inc. and Does 100

    settled

    Brought by a franchisee · filed 2021-04-07 · U.S. District Court, The Central District of California · 2:21-cv-02993

    “Jessie Rodriguez and Cal American Homes and Realty v. Engel & Volkers Americas, Inc. and Does 100, Case No. 2:21-cv-02993, in the U.S. District Court, The Central District of California, On April 7, 2021 our franchisee, Cal American Homes and Realty, and its owner Jessie Rodriguez, filed a complaint against us alleging fraud, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage,”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“On April 27, 2021 the parties entered into a settlement agreement and all claims between them were settled, without any damages being paid.”

  • In Re: Franchise No Poaching Provisions, State of Washington v. Engel & Völkers Americas, Inc.

    concluded

    Government or regulatory action · filed 2019-08-16 · State of Washington, King County Superior Court · 19-2-25518-8

    “In Re: Franchise No Poaching Provisions, State of Washington v. Engel & Völkers Americas,Inc., State of Washington, King County Superior Court, No. 19-2-25518-8, commenced on August 16, 2019.”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“The matter was resolved by Engel & Völkers and the Washington State Office of the Attorney General entering into an Assurance of Discontinuance, approved by the King County Superior Court on September 30, 2019.”

Parent, affiliates and predecessor

Concluded (3)

  • EV Scarsdale Corp. and Jonathan Lerner v. Engel & Voelkers North East, LLC, Engel & Voelkers N.Y., LLC as successor in interest to Engel & Voelkers North East, LLC, Engel & Völkers U.S. Holdings, Inc. and Rauert Peters

    settled

    Brought by a franchisee · Engel & Voelkers North East, LLC; Engel & Voelkers N.Y., LLC (successor in interest to North East); Engel & Völkers U.S. Holdings, Inc.; Rauert Peters · filed 2011-04-29 · Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York · Index No. 651169-11

    “EV Scarsdale Corp. and Jonathan Lerner v. Engel & Voelkers North East, LLC, Engel & Voelkers N.Y., LLC as successor in interest to Engel & Voelkers North East, LLC, Engel & Völkers U.S. Holdings, Inc. and Rauert Peters, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Index No. 651169- 11, filed April 29, 2011.”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“The remaining claims were settled pursuant to a settlement agreement dated May 29, 2018 between us, the plaintiffs in this action and the plaintiffs in the 2 other actions disclosed in this Item (the “Settlement Agreement”). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, we paid the plaintiffs in the 3 cases a total amount of $125,000.” (page 21)

  • James Ian Properties Corp., Gary Leveillee and Gordon Dwan v. Engel & Voelkers North East LLC, Engel & Voelkers N.Y. LLC as successor in interest to Engel & Voelkers North East, LLC, Engel & Völkers U.S. Holdings, Inc., and Michael Audet

    settled

    Brought by a franchisee · Engel & Voelkers North East LLC; Engel & Voelkers N.Y. LLC (successor in interest); Engel & Völkers U.S. Holdings, Inc.; Michael Audet · filed 2011-06-10 · Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York · Index No: 651611/11

    “James Ian Properties Corp., Gary Leveillee and Gordon Dwan v. Engel & Voelkers North East LLC, Engel & Voelkers N.Y. LLC as successor in interest to Engel & Voelkers North East, LLC, Engel & Völkers U.S. Holdings, Inc., and Michael Audet, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Index No: 651611/11, filed June 10, 2011.”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“The remaining claims were settled pursuant to the Settlement Agreement dated May 29, 2018 between us, the plaintiffs in this action and the plaintiffs in the 2 other actions disclosed in this Item. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, we paid the plaintiffs in the 3 cases a total amount of $125,000.”

  • Riverside Homes Realty Inc. and Ling Ho v. Engel & Voelkers North East LLC, Engel & Voelkers N.Y. LLC as successor in interest to Engel & Voelkers North East LLC, Engel & Völkers U.S. Holdings, Inc., Rauert Peters, Michael Audet and Ralph Lenihan

    settled

    Brought by a franchisee · Engel & Voelkers North East LLC; Engel & Voelkers N.Y. LLC (successor in interest); Engel & Völkers U.S. Holdings, Inc.; Rauert Peters, Michael Audet and Ralph Lenihan · filed 2011-06-10 · Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York · Index No. 651608/11

    “Riverside Homes Realty Inc. and Ling Ho v. Engel & Voelkers North East LLC, Engel & Voelkers N.Y. LLC as successor in interest to Engel & Voelkers North East LLC, Engel & Völkers U.S. Holdings, Inc., Rauert Peters, Michael Audet and Ralph Lenihan, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Index No. 651608/11, filed June 10, 2011.”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

    Outcome:“The remaining claims were settled pursuant to the Settlement Agreement dated May 29, 2018 between us, the plaintiffs in this action and the plaintiffs in the 2 other actions disclosed in this Item. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, we paid the plaintiffs in the 3 cases a total amount of $125,000.” (page 22)

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.

Initial term10 yrs
Renewal term10 yrs
TerritoryExclusive (favorable vs category)
Initial training53 hrs

Source: FDD 2025 · Items 11, 12, 17

FDD Items 12, 15, 17 · continued from Risk & Legal

Contract & Territory Detail

Initial term10 years
Renewal term10 years
Allowed renewalsℹ1
Territory typeExclusive territory
Protected territoryYes
Exclusive territoryℹYes
Online sales rightsℹGranted
Franchisor can competeNo
Hire a manager?Allowed
Owner-operatorOptional
Non-compete (miles)ℹ75 mi
Right of first refusalℹYes
RoFR response window60 days
Transfer requires consentYes
Termination notice30 days
Termination groundsℹ1
Curable defaultsℹ6
Mandatory arbitrationNo
Jury trial waiverNo
Governing lawNY
Litigation count9
View Item 3 litigation summary

3 pending cases (antitrust class actions re broker commissions: Gibson consolidated / Lopez), 1 pending (EVFL v. EVA breach of contract); 4 concluded cases. Settled Gibson for $6.9M and Lopez for $800K.

Items 10, 11

Training & Operations

Classroom training
53 hrs
On-the-job training
0 hrs
Training location
Virtual web-based platform or at a U.S. location designated by franchisor
Ongoing training
Required
Site selection
Franchisee selects; franchisor must approve
Franchisor financing
Not offered
Item 10
POS system
Integrated Product Suite
Operating tech stack

Items 5 & 11

Franchisor Support

✗Site selection assistance
✗Grand opening support
✗Lease negotiation help

Technology: Integrated Product Suite

Item 20 · call current owners

Franchisee Contacts

208 owners to call

Name · phone · city · state. Extracted from FDD Item 20

Unlock 208 contacts · $49
Free preview
406-300-••••MA
Unlock all 208 contacts
251-304-••••CA
479-268-••••MI
626-584-••••CA
269-331-••••GA

Frequently asked questions

Frequently Asked Questions

How much does it cost to open a Engel & Völkers franchise?

The total investment to open a Engel & Völkers franchise ranges from $92K – $289K, with an initial franchise fee of $35K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).

What do Engel & Völkers franchise owners earn?

Engel & Völkers 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 Engel & Völkers?

Engel & Völkers is franchised by Engel & Völkers Americas, Inc.. Its parent company is Engel & Völkers Residential GmbH (E&V Residential). The ultimate parent named in the FDD is Permira VII Inv. Platform S.à.r.l. Source: FDD Item 1, 2025 filing.

What is Item 19 in the Engel & Völkers 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 Engel & Völkers FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.

What is Engel & Völkers's franchise failure rate?

SBA 7(a) loan charge-off data is not available for Engel & Völkers (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 Engel & Völkers franchise locations are there?

As of their most recent FDD filing, Engel & Völkers has 190 total units in the United States, including 190 franchised units and 0 company-owned units. 9 new units were opened in the latest reporting year.

Is Engel & Völkers a good franchise to buy?

FranchiseVerdict rates Engel & Völkers as a B-grade franchise with a verdict score of 59 out of 100 (higher is better). The grade is a deterministic score built from six weighted dimensions — financial health, unit economics, unit growth, scale, legal, and transparency — then calibrated against SBA loan charge-off rates and FDD age. Transparency is one of the six, so a filing that discloses less scores lower on that dimension than one that discloses more. Our rating is based solely on publicly available FDD and government data; we recommend speaking with current franchisees before making any investment decision. This is not investment advice.

Data sourced from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) FOIA records. Not financial advice.

For franchisors

Are you the franchisor?

If you represent Engel & Völkers, 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.