JAN-PRO Commercial Cleaning Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026
- Investment
- $3K – $58K
- Disclosed sales
- partial, no system average
- SBA charge-off
- Not SBA-matched
Data from FDD filing
Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology
JAN-PRO Commercial Cleaning is a commercial janitorial franchise servicing offices, retail, and facilities under recurring contracts. Franchisees manage cleaning crews, client accounts, and quality, often starting as owner-operators.
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026
A JAN-PRO Commercial Cleaning franchise requires a total initial investment of $3K – $58K, including a $1K – $44K franchise fee and an ongoing 11.0% royalty[2]. The 2025 FDD on file does not yield a unit-revenue figure we can publish. 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: 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 scored4 of 6 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing; the rest are marked “Not cited” beside the figure.
Overview
- Investment
- $3K – $58K
- 1st pct Cleaning & Ma…
- Avg gross sales
- N/A
- Per franchisee, not per outletPartial period
- Royalty
- 11.0%
- 79th pct Cleaning & Ma…
- Units
- 153
- 71st pct Cleaning & Ma…
- SBA charge-off
- N/A
Quick verdict · Cleaning & Maintenance · color = vs category peers
Green = favorable by >10% vs Cleaning & Maintenance 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 $3K – $58K including a $1K franchise fee, 11.0% ongoing royalty.
- RETURNSThe figure shown was the mean of sixteen franchisees who OPENED during 2024 (printed p.47) — a first-year cohort, most operating only part of the year, against a system of 153 outlets. This filing is also KDO Capital's San Diego regional offering rather than the national brand, so the unit count is San Diego only. No figure for the established base is disclosed.
- RISKVerdict A (Strongest tier), verdict score 71/100 (higher is better).
- GROWTHPositive: net +16 franchised outlets in the latest year (25 opened, 9 closed) (Item 20).
- FLAG9 units terminated last reporting year (5.9% of the system). Ask existing franchisees why.
Item 1 · who you're contracting with
The Franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- KDO Capital, Inc.
- Parent company
- None (no parent)
- Predecessor
- CCSI (sold San Diego territory assets to KDO Capital October 31, 2019)
- Prior franchisor entity
- CEO title
- Chief Executive Officer
- Keith Olmo
- Incorporated in
- CA
- HQ
- 4125 Sorrento Valley Blvd., Suite E, San Diego, CA 92121
- Auditor
- R P F Accounting Services
- Audited financials
- Franchisor revenue
- $4.1M
- vs $4.0M prior year
- Management churn noted
- Frequent turnover
- Item 2 disclosed frequent executive changes
Same owner · FDD Item 1
12 other brands on this site name None (no parent) as parent or ultimate parent in their own FDD.
- 9ROUNDC
- ADVANTAGE COLLEGE PLANNINGB
- AMRAMPA
- AlignLifeC
- Body Alive StudioC
- Ivybrook AcademyA
- ONEZOC
- Once Upon A ChildA
- Original Rainbow ConeC
- Pizza SchmizzaB
- SarahCareF
- True RESTC
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
- Keith Olmo
- Headquarters
- CA
- Founded
- 2019
- FDD year
- 2025
- States available
- 1
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost runs 82% below the typical cleaning & maintenance franchise.
Source: FDD 2025 · Items 5–7
Full Item 7 breakdown13 line items
Initial investment breakdown
| Line item | Low | High | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial Franchise Fee | $1K | $44K | |
| Travel and Living Expenses While Attending Certification Program | $50 | $300 | |
| Office and Related Expenses | $150 | $550 | |
| Vehicle | $0 | $500 | |
| Initial Equipment Package | $949 | $949 | |
| Real Estate | $0 | $550 | |
| Electrostatic Sprayer Machine | $50 | $2K | |
| Floor Buffing Machine | $50 | $1K | |
| Carpet Cleaning Machine | $50 | $4K | |
| Insurance | $200 | $620 | |
| Legal & Organizational Costs | $50 | $2K | |
| California Property Service Workers Protection Act Fee | $500 | $500 | |
| Additional Funds (3 Months) | $150 | $550 | |
| Total initial investment | $3K | $58K |
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
- $3K – $58K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Liquid capital req'd
- $150 – $550
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Franchise fee
- $1K – $44K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Royalty
- 11.0%
- typical 6–8%
- Ad fund
- 0.0%
- typical 3–5%
- Total fee load
- 11.0%
- vs 9–13% typical
Ongoing fees · Item 6
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 11.0% of gross sales |
| Marketing / ad fund | 0.0% |
| Technology fee | $0 |
| Transfer fee | $2K |
| Renewal fee | $750 |
| Inventory (initial) | $949 – $949 |
| Total fee load | 11.0% of rev |
What do units actually make?
Source: FDD 2025 · Item 19
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
No Item 19 revenue figure for JAN-PRO Commercial Cleaning is on file. 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 JAN-PRO Commercial Cleaning unit return on the cash you put in?
Illustrative category typicals — not sourced to any filing, survey or sample. Replace them with figures from franchisee validation calls before you rely on the output.
Unlevered ROIC · per unit
Your modelled return on total invested capital, before any debt financing.
—
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for annual revenue, COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.
These models are for research and scenario planning only. Not investment advice. Actual results depend on your specific location, management, and market conditions. Consult a franchise attorney and accountant before signing any franchise agreement.
Item 19 · Source: 2025 FDD
Financial Performance
The figure shown was the mean of sixteen franchisees who OPENED during 2024 (printed p.47) — a first-year cohort, most operating only part of the year, against a system of 153 outlets. This filing is also KDO Capital's San Diego regional offering rather than the national brand, so the unit count is San Diego only. No figure for the established base is disclosed.
Averaged per franchisee, not per outlet - not comparable with per-outlet figures
Covers a partial period, not a full year
- Item 19 type
- Actual Gross Earnings in 2024 for each of the 16 unit franchisees that opened for business between January 1 and December 31, 2024, named one by one beside the Plan Purchased and what they paid for it. Despite the word 'earnings' these are gross Account Billings and not profit - the filing's own Item 5 says Account Gross Billings 'do not reflect the costs of sales and operating expenses that must be deducted from Account Gross Billings to determine your net revenue or profit', and Item 6 defines Gross Billings as 'the total revenues due from each Account for all services you provided'. Every one of the 16 is a first-year franchisee, so each figure covers only the part of 2024 it was open. They run $0.00 (Rebecca's Cleaning Services, an FP-5 plan) to $95,035.69 (Aurelio Janitorial Services, an FP-40), against Initial Plans sized $5,000 to $100,000 of estimated annual Account Gross Billings. This is the Jan-Pro San Diego regional master's disclosure document, not the national Jan-Pro system.
- Sample size
- 16 franchisees
- vs category median 32
- Range (low → high)
- $0→$95KNot cited — published from our reading of the franchisor's disclosure document; the page it is printed on has not been located.
- Cohort dispersion (min → max)
- Reporting year
- 2024
- Fiscal year the figures cover
- Source filing
- FDD 2025
- Disclosed in the 2025 filing, covering 2024
- Transparency
- 3 / 10
- vs category median 4 / 10 · below
Compared against 191 Cleaning & Maintenance brands
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 11.0% — above the Cleaning & Maintenance median of 8.3%.
Disclosure
Item 19 reports revenue for a partial period rather than annual gross sales, so unit revenue is not directly comparable.
Operator retention
System expanding at 16.8% CAGR over 3 years across 153 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 Cleaning & Maintenance medians
How JAN-PRO Commercial Cleaning Compares
Per franchisee, not per outlet - the category median is per-outlet only, so no comparison is shown
Category median of published Cleaning & Maintenance 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
- 153
- Opened
- 25
- Last reporting year
- Closed
- 9
- Terminated
- 9
- Franchisor ended the franchise (per Item 20)
- Non-renewed
- 0
- Term expired, not renewed (per Item 20)
- Turnover rate
- 5.9%
- Company-owned
- 0
- Corporate units in the system
- % franchised
- 100%
- vs corporate-owned
- Net growth (3-yr)
- +16.8%
- Net unit change over 3 years
- 3-yr CAGR
- +16.8%
- Compounded over last 3 years
Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers
- Terminated
- 9
- Not renewed
- 0
- Transferred
- 1
- Reacquired
- 0
- Franchisor bought back
- Signed, not yet open
- 0
- 0.00 per open outlet · Item 20 Table 5
- Projected new
- 30
- Franchisor's next-year forecast
- Transfer rate
- 0.7%
- Owners selling to other franchisees
- Termination rate
- 5.9%
- Franchisor-initiated terminations
- Ceased ops
- 5.9%
- Units that stopped operating
Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.
Item 20 · 6 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 6 states.
- CA 95
- AL 1
- ID 1
- IL 1
- NC 1
- NJ 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.
No SBA loan data available for this brand.
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
JAN-PRO presents HIGH RISK due to a $30M employee misclassification settlement, undisclosed net income, unprotected territories, and unclear revenue metrics that suggest weak franchisee economics and ongoing compliance vulnerabilities.
Why this reads harsher than the A grade: the grade weighs financial health, unit economics, unit growth, scale, legal, and transparency across the whole filing, while this summary lists individual flags without that weighting. The flags are worth checking with current owners; neither is investment advice.
Litigation (Item 3)
Subject: the franchisor is a named party (defendant).
No litigation disclosed for KDO Capital (the franchisor). Master Franchisor (Jan-Pro Franchising International) has 1 pending case: District of Columbia v. Nabicorp Enterprises and JPI (2022, DC Superior Court - employee misclassification/wage claims). Prior actions fully settled: Roman v. JPI ($30M settlement 2024); Brandao and Barros arbitrations ($22K and $13K respectively settled 2019).
Largest disclosed settlement: $30,000,000
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None disclosed
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · R P F Accounting Services
Franchisor revenue (Item 21)
Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)
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 71 / 100 verdict
- 01HIGHMajor litigation history: $30M settlement for employee misclassification claims (2004-2023) indicates systemic labor law compliance issues that may persist
- 02MEDNo average net income disclosed despite 153 units operating — opacity on profitability is a major red flag for a $3.2K-$57.7K investment model
- 03MINORUnprotected territory creates direct competition risk; franchisees can cannibalize each other's revenue in the same geographic area
- 04MINORLow franchise fee ($1,025) combined with 11% royalty suggests franchisor relies heavily on volume/royalties rather than upfront fees, indicating potential pressure to recruit over franchisee success
- 05MINOR5-year term is short; franchisees may face renewal uncertainty and pressure to accept unfavorable terms
- 06MINORAverage revenue of $29,167 is extremely low; unclear if this is monthly or annual, but if annual, ROI on even the minimum $3,224 investment is concerning
Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification
Litigation case detail5 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Pending (1)
District of Columbia v. Nabicorp Enterprises, Inc. and JAN-PRO Franchising International, Inc.
pendingGovernment or regulatory action · filed 2022-07-13 · Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Civil Division · 2022 CA 003128 B
“District of Columbia v. Nabicorp Enterprises, Inc. and JAN-PRO Franchising International, Inc. (Case Number 2022 CA 003128 B, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Civil Division). On July 13, 2022, the Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) for the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit alleging that Nabicorp Enterprises, Inc. (“Nabicorp”), a Regional Franchise Developer”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The District of Columbia filed its opposition papers to the motions on December 6, 2024, and the defendants submitted their respective reply on January 6, 2025. It is unknown as to when the court will render its decision.”
Concluded (4)
Claudio Brandao v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2016-07-28 · American Arbitration Association · 01-16-0003-954
“Claudio Brandao v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., Before the American Arbitration Association (Case No. 01-16-0003-954). On July 28, 2016, Brandao, a plaintiff in the above action, filed an individual Demand for Arbitration before the American Arbitration Association.”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The Defendant has opposed this motion. On August 21, 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement whereby Brandao released all claims in exchange for a payment of $22,000.”
Roman, Vazquez and Aguilar, and all others similarly situated v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2016 · United States District Court, Northern District of California (transferred from the Massachusetts District Court) · 3:16-cv-05961
“Roman, Vazquez and Aguilar, and all others similarly situated v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. (Case No. 3:16-cv-05961, United States District Court, Northern District of California). On November 3, 2016, the Court accepted a transfer of this case from the Massachusetts District Court,”Page 16 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On October 31, 2023, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, subject to the approval of the Court, whereby Jan-Pro agreed to pay thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) to resolve all individual and class wide claims in exchange for releases from all plaintiffs, class members, and putative class members.” (page 17)
Tony Barros v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2016-07-28 · American Arbitration Association · 01-16-0003-0958
“Tony Barros v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., Before the American Arbitration Association (Case No. 01-16-0003-0958). On July 28, 2016, Barros, a plaintiff in the above Massachusetts state court action, filed an individual Demand for Arbitration before the American Arbitration Association.”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“has a right to go forward due to the release he signed. On September 6, 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement whereby Barros released all claims in exchange for a payment of $13,000.”
Claudio Brandao and Rommel Lima, et al. v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2013-12-18 · Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts · 13-4439B
“Claudio Brandao and Rommel Lima, et al. v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. (Case number 13-4439B, Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts). The attorney in the above federal case attempted to add two additional plaintiffs to the federal case in 2012.”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On May 7, 2016, the judge granted the Defendant’s Motion and dismissed this action and stated that Brandao should have filed an arbitration action and Lima should have filed suit in New Hampshire.”
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 11.0% 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 | 5 years |
|---|---|
| Renewal term | 5 years |
| Allowed renewalsℹ | 2 |
| Territory type | No territory protection |
| Protected territory | No |
| Exclusive territoryℹ | No |
| Online sales rightsℹ | Restricted |
| Franchisor can compete | Yes |
| Hire a manager? | Allowed |
| Owner-operator | Required |
| Non-compete (years)ℹ | 1 year |
| Right of first refusalℹ | No |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Termination notice | 30 days |
| Mandatory arbitration | Yes |
| Arbitration location | California (county of franchisor's principal office) |
| Jury trial waiver | No |
| Governing law | CA |
| Litigation count | 5 |
View Item 3 litigation summary
No litigation disclosed for KDO Capital (the franchisor). Master Franchisor (Jan-Pro Franchising International) has 1 pending case: District of Columbia v. Nabicorp Enterprises and JPI (2022, DC Superior Court - employee misclassification/wage claims). Prior actions fully settled: Roman v. JPI ($30M settlement 2024); Brandao and Barros arbitrations ($22K and $13K respectively settled 2019).
Items 10, 11
Training & Operations
- Classroom training
- 15 hrs
- On-the-job training
- 0 hrs
- Training location
- Franchisor's office or web-enabled conferencing (San Diego, CA)
- Ongoing training
- Required
- Time to open
- 1 mo
- From signing to launch
- Site selection
- Franchisee
- Franchisor financing
- Offered
- Item 10
- POS system
- JanHub
- Operating tech stack
Items 5 & 11
Franchisor Support
Technology: JanHub
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 JAN-PRO Commercial Cleaning franchise?
The total investment to open a JAN-PRO Commercial Cleaning franchise ranges from $3K – $58K, with an initial franchise fee of $1K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).
What do JAN-PRO Commercial Cleaning franchise owners earn?
Item 19 of the JAN-PRO Commercial Cleaning FDD discloses outlet figures from $0 to $95K but no single average across all outlets. These are gross sales figures, not profit; the Revenue section shows what the filing reports and on what basis. Item 20 of the FDD lists current and former franchisees; asking them directly is the standard way to fill this gap.
Who owns JAN-PRO Commercial Cleaning?
JAN-PRO Commercial Cleaning is franchised by KDO Capital, Inc.. Its parent company is None (no parent). Source: FDD Item 1, 2025 filing.
What is Item 19 in the JAN-PRO Commercial Cleaning 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 JAN-PRO Commercial Cleaning FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is JAN-PRO Commercial Cleaning's franchise failure rate?
SBA 7(a) loan charge-off data is not available for JAN-PRO Commercial Cleaning (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 JAN-PRO Commercial Cleaning franchise locations are there?
As of their most recent FDD filing, JAN-PRO Commercial Cleaning has 153 total units in the United States, including 153 franchised units and 0 company-owned units. 25 new units were opened in the latest reporting year.
Is JAN-PRO Commercial Cleaning a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict rates JAN-PRO Commercial Cleaning as a A-grade franchise with a verdict score of 71 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 JAN-PRO Commercial Cleaning, you can request corrections or provide updated information.
Other Cleaning & Maintenance franchises
Compare similar franchise opportunities in the Cleaning & Maintenance 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.