Keller Williams Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026
- Investment
- $182K – $336K
- Disclosed sales
- not disclosed
- SBA charge-off
- Limited · 12 loans
Data from FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records
Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology
Keller Williams is one of the largest residential and commercial real-estate brokerage franchises by agent count. Franchisees run market-center offices recruiting, training, and supporting agents, earning from commission splits.
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026
A Keller Williams franchise requires a total initial investment of $182K – $336K, 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: 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 scored5 of 5 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing.
Overview
- Investment
- $182K – $336K
- 83rd pct Real Estate
- Avg gross sales
- N/A
- Royalty
- 6.0%
- 24th pct Real Estate
- Units
- 773
- 85th pct Real Estate
- SBA charge-off
- N/A
Quick verdict · Real Estate · color = vs category peers
Green = favorable by >10% vs Real Estate median · No shading = within ±10% · Red = unfavorable by >10% · Source: FDD filings + SBA 7(a)
Data from public FDD filings and SBA records. Not financial advice. Methodology
Bottom line
- COSTTotal investment $182K – $336K 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 64/100 (higher is better).
- GROWTHNegative: net -4 franchised outlets in the latest year (9 opened, 9 closed) (Item 20).
- LEGAL32 litigation matters disclosed in Item 3, higher than typical. Of the 15 listed on this page, 15 name the franchisor itself. Pending claims are allegations, not findings.
Item 1 · who you're contracting with
The Franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- Keller Williams Realty, LLC
- Parent company
- KW Intermediate Co LLC
- FDD Item 1, page 10 of the 2025 FDD
- Ultimate parent
- Trident Keller Williams Realty Holdings, Inc.
- FDD Item 1, page 10 of the 2025 FDD
- Predecessor
- Keller Williams, Inc. Realtors
- Prior franchisor entity
- CEO title
- Chief Executive Officer and President
- Chris Czarnecki
- Incorporated in
- TX
- HQ
- 1221 South Mopac Expressway, Suite 400, Austin, Texas 78746
- Auditor
- RSM US LLP
- Audited financials
- Franchisor revenue
- $431.9M
- vs $497.3M prior year
Overview
About
- CEO
- Chris Czarnecki
- Headquarters
- TX
- Founded
- 1983
- FDD year
- 2025
- States available
- 51
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost runs 95% above the typical real estate franchise.
Source: FDD 2025 · Items 5–7
FDD Item 7 · 2025 filing
Initial investment breakdown
| Cost component | Low | High |
|---|---|---|
| Initial franchise fee | $35K | $35K |
| Working capital (3–6 mo) | $75K | $150K |
| Equipment, build-out, other | $72K | $151K |
| Total initial investment | $182K | $336K |
Source: Keller Williams 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
- $182K – $336K
- Bottom third — review vs category
- Liquid capital req'd
- $75K – $150K
- Bottom third — review vs category
- Franchise fee
- $35K – $35K
- Middle of category vs category
- Royalty
- 6.0%
- typical 6–8%
- Ad fund
- 0.0%
- typical 3–5%
- Total fee load
- 6.5%
- vs 9–13% typical
Ongoing fees · Item 6
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 6.0% of gross sales |
| Marketing / ad fund | 0.0% |
| Technology fee | $79 |
| Training fee | $60 |
| Transfer fee | $2K |
| Renewal fee | $4K |
| Inventory (initial) | $4K – $7K |
| Total fee load | 6.5% of rev |
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
Keller Williams 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 Keller Williams 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
No financial performance representation
This franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that.
Item 20 of the FDD lists current and former franchisees; asking them directly is the standard way to fill this gap.
Operator outlook
What the numbers say
Data-driven interpretation of this brand's financial disclosures, fee structure, and system trajectory.
Fee burden
Total ongoing fee load of 6.5% (near the Real Estate median).
Disclosure
This franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the FranchiseVerdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that. Item 20 of the FDD lists current and former franchisees; asking them directly is the standard way to fill this gap.
Operator retention
System contracting at -2.8% CAGR over 3 years. Investigate whether closures are franchisor-driven consolidation or franchisee exits.
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 Keller Williams Compares
Category median of published Real Estate brands that report the figure; the middle half spans the 25th to 75th percentile and n counts the brands behind it. Medians are used because a few very large systems pull an average far from the typical brand. Revenue is disclosed gross sales, not profit.
Is the system healthy?
Source: FDD 2025 · Item 20
Unit growth
Item 20 · unit dynamics
The Growth Chart
- Total units
- 773
- Opened
- 9
- Last reporting year
- Closed
- 9
- Terminated
- 4
- Franchisor ended the franchise (per Item 20)
- Non-renewed
- 5
- Term expired, not renewed (per Item 20)
- Turnover rate
- 2.4%
- Company-owned
- 11
- Corporate units in the system
- % franchised
- 99%
- vs corporate-owned
- Net growth (3-yr)
- -2.8%
- Net unit change over 3 years
- 3-yr CAGR
- -2.8%
- Compounded over last 3 years
Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers
- Terminated
- 4
- Not renewed
- 5
- Transferred
- 13
- Reacquired
- 5
- Franchisor bought back
- Projected new
- 0
- Franchisor's next-year forecast
- Transfer rate
- 1.7%
- Owners selling to other franchisees
- Termination rate
- 0.7%
- Franchisor-initiated terminations
- Ceased ops
- 1.2%
- Units that stopped operating
Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.
Item 12 · 51 states reported
The Territory Map
FDD Item 12 reports the state count, but the specific list isn't in our current data. The map will appear once we re-extract from the FDD or enough franchisee contacts are available.
51
states with franchisees (per FDD Item 12)
SBA loan performance
Government records
SBA Loan Data
Aggregated from SBA 7(a) and 504 loan disclosures, public data unique to FranchiseVerdict.
- Total loans
- 12
- Loan volume
- $5.8M
- Median loan
- $155K
- 50th percentile
- Charge-off rate
- Limited · 12 loans
- Limited SBA coverage: 12 loans, rate hidden until 10 have resolved and loans reach 2% of franchised units
Historical SBA 7(a) lending data, not predictive of future performance. How SBA charge-off rates are calculated
- Repayment rate (PIF)
- Limited · 12 loans
- 5-yr charge-off
- Limited · 12 loans
- Loans approved 2021+
- Active lenders
- 11
- Defaults
- 0
- Typical loan rate
- 6.4%
- avg rate to borrowers
- Franchised industry avg
- 14.8%
- n=527 loans
- Jobs supported
- 431
- 7.4 per loan
- Lender concentration
- 17%
- top lender's share
Franchise vs independent — in offices of real estate agents and brokers, franchised businesses charge off at 14.8% vs 29.6% for independents — franchising is associated with 50% lower SBA default risk in this category.
Top lenders financing Keller Williams franchisees
Showing 3 of 11 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 Keller Williams from SBA 7(a) FOIA data.
- Principal loss rate
- 0.0%
- Avg SBA guarantee
- 75%
- Avg interest rate
- 6.41%
- Lender concentration
- 16.7%
- Job velocity
- 7.4 per $100K
- NAICS benchmark
- 8.5%
- NAICS 531210
- Jobs supported
- 431
Top SBA lendersTop lender holds 17% of loans
| # | Lender | Loans | Volume | Default % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bangor Savings Bank | 2 | $215K | 0.0% |
| 2 | Popular Bank | 1 | $150K | 0.0% |
| 3 | Libertyville Bank & Trust Company, National Association | 1 | $150K | 0.0% |
| 4 | Meridian Bank, National Association | 1 | $160K | 0.0% |
| 5 | Citizens Bank, National Association | 1 | $100K | 0.0% |
| 6 | Zions Bank, A Division of | 1 | $411K | 0.0% |
| 7 | Columbia Bank | 1 | $250K | 0.0% |
| 8 | BMO Bank National Association | 1 | $387K | N/A |
| 9 | JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association | 1 | $30K | 0.0% |
| 10 | Celtic Bank Corporation | 1 | $2.1M | 0.0% |
Geographic failure vector
| State | Loans | Defaults | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| AZArizona | 3 | 0 | 0.0% |
| NHNew Hampshire | 3 | 0 | 0.0% |
| CACalifornia | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| FLFlorida | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| ILIllinois | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| INIndiana | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| LALouisiana | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| TXTexas | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
SBA 7(a) lending trend
Source: SBA 7(a) + 504 FOIA loan-level data, matched by FranchiseVerdict
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
Keller Williams presents HIGH RISK due to declining unit count, unresolved antitrust litigation threatening commission model viability, absence of financial performance disclosure, unprotected territory, and going concern indicators.
Why this reads harsher than the B grade: the grade weighs financial health, unit economics, unit growth, scale, legal, and transparency across the whole filing, while this summary lists individual flags without that weighting. The flags are worth checking with current owners; neither is investment advice.
Litigation (Item 3)
Subject: the franchisor is a named party (defendant).
Multiple pending antitrust class actions (Moehrl/Sitzer/buyer-side) related to MLS buyer broker commission conspiracies; several TCPA class actions; individual business disputes (Davis, Basinski, Morris, Fetick, Coffey, Montalbano); global $70M settlement of Moehrl/Sitzer/Umpa cases achieved in 2024; several concluded cases settled including $40M TCPA class settlement (DeShay)
Largest disclosed settlement: $70,000,000
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None disclosed
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · RSM US LLP
Franchisor revenue (Item 21)
Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)
Audited consolidated statements for Keller Williams Realty, Inc. and Subsidiaries, year ended December 31, 2024 (with 2023 and 2022 comparatives). FDD also includes an unaudited Q1 2025 interim statement for Keller Williams Realty, LLC; audited annual figures used here. Net income $127,081,338 is consolidated; net income attributable to KW Realty, Inc. (excluding noncontrolling interest) was $114,459,826. Total stockholders' equity of $63,015,518 includes $49,431,722 noncontrolling interest; equity attributable to KW Realty, Inc. was $13,583,796. Auditor report signed in Austin, Texas, March 20, 2025; firm name appears only as a signature image and is not present in extractable text.
ⓘ 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: No
- Can negotiate own supplier terms: Yes
Score breakdown · what drove the 64 / 100 verdict
- 01MEDMultiple active class action antitrust lawsuits (Moehrl, Sitzer) alleging commission inflation conspiracy create existential legal and reputational risk to the franchise system
- 02HIGHSystem declining 0.5% YoY with 773 units suggests erosion of franchisee confidence and potential accelerating departures if litigation outcomes are unfavorable
- 03MEDNo disclosed average revenue or net income (missing Item 19 equivalent) prevents validation of the $182k–$335k investment ROI and profitability claims
- 04MED6% royalty on Gross Commission Income is high relative to industry peers and creates ongoing cash drain even during market downturns or individual underperformance
- 05MINORUnprotected territory enables franchisor to recruit competing franchisees in same market, undercutting individual franchisee profitability and customer acquisition
- 06MINOR5-year term with no renewal guarantees combined with litigation risk creates uncertainty in franchisee's ability to recoup initial investment
Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification
Litigation case detail32 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Pending (15)
Dalton K. Jensen, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The National Association of Realtors, et al.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2024-02-09 · United States District Court of Utah · 24-cv-109
“Plaintiffs filed this Moehrl copycat Class Action Complaint on February 9, 2024, which alleges that the Defendants in this case conspired to require Plaintiff home sellers to pay buyer brokers’ commissions at an inflated rate”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On February 1, 2024, we entered a nationwide class settlement under which the definition of the settlement class and scope of the release would resolve the claims alleged in this case.” (page 22)
Willsim Latham, LLC, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MetroList Services, et al.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2024-01-18 · United States District Court Central District of California · 24-cv-67
“Plaintiffs filed this Moehrl copycat Class Action Complaint on January 18, 2024, which alleges that the Defendants in this case conspired to require Plaintiff home sellers to pay buyer brokers’ commissions at an inflated rate when listing a property on the MetroList Multiple Listing Service site in California”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Christina Grace, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Association of Realtors, et al.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2023-12-08 · United States District Court Northern District of California, San Francisco Division · 3:23-cv-06352
“Plaintiff filed this Moehrl copycat Class Action Complaint on December 8, 2023, which alleges that the Defendants in this case conspired to require Plaintiffs home sellers to pay buyer brokers’ commissions at an inflated rate when listing a property on a Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) sites within California”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On February 1, 2024, we entered a nationwide class settlement under which the definition of the settlement class and scope of the release would resolve the claims alleged in this case.”
Colleen L. Basinski, Bart S. Basinski, and Baz Investment Group, Inc. v. Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Gary Keller, Marc King, Dan Holt, and Colette Ching
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2023-03-09 · District Court of Travis County, Texas; removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas · D-1-GN-23-001314 (removed: 1:23-cv-00299-RP)
“Plaintiffs filed this action on March 9, 2023, alleging claims against the defendants for tortious interference. Keller Williams Realty, Inc. removed the case on March 17, 2023, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00299-RP.”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The Parties are discussing potential arbitrators, but no demand in arbitration has been filed. Defendants will continue to vigorously defend against the matter.”
Daniel Umpa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The National Association of Realtors, et al.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2023-12-27 · Western District of Missouri · 23-cv-945
“Plaintiffs filed this Moehrl copycat Class Action Complaint on December 27, 2023, which alleges that the Defendants in this case conspired to require Plaintiff home sellers to pay buyer brokers’ commissions at an inflated rate when listing a property on all Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) sites in the United States”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On February 1, 2024, we entered a nationwide class settlement that will settle the claims brought in this case, the Moehrl case (discussed above), and the Sitzer case (discussed above).”
John Davis v. Keller Williams Realty, Inc.; Gary Keller; Josh Team; Business MAPS, Ltd; and Business MAPS Management, LLC.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2023-08-29 · United States District Court Western District of Texas, Austin Division · 1:23-cv-1017
“On August 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Second Litigation against Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (“KWRI”); Gary”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On August 12, 2024, the Court compelled the Second Litigation to arbitration. The Court further ordered the Second Litigation stayed and administratively closed.” (page 20)
Julie Martin, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Texas Association of Realtors, Inc., et al.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2023-12-14 · United States District Court Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division · 23-cv-1104
“Plaintiffs filed this Moehrl copycat Class Action Complaint on December 14, 2023, which alleges that the Defendants in this case conspired to require Plaintiff home sellers to pay buyer brokers’ commissions at an inflated rate when listing a property on certain Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) sites within Texas”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Paul Morris v. Gary Keller; Tom Lamphere; Jan Richey; CalTex Millennium, LLC; and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2023-09-11 · Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles · 23STCV21862
“Plaintiff filed the Litigation on September 11, 2023, alleging a claim for intentional tort against Defendants and a claim for unjust enrichment against Keller Williams Realty, Inc.”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s claims to arbitration and the court granted the motion. No demand in arbitration has been filed. Defendants will continue to vigorously defend against the matter.”
QJ Team, LLC and Five Points Holdings, LLC, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Texas Association of Realtors, Inc., et al.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2023-11-13 · United States District Court Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division · 4:23-CV-01013
“Plaintiffs filed this Moehrl copycat Class Action Complaint on November 13, 2023, which alleges that the Defendants in this case conspired to require Plaintiffs home sellers to pay buyer brokers’ commissions at an inflated rate when listing a property on”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On February 1, 2024, we entered a nationwide class settlement under which the definition of the settlement class and scope of the release would resolve the claims alleged in this case.” (page 21)
Shauntell Burton, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. National Association of Realtors, Keller Williams, LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2023-11-13 · United States District Court for the District of South Carolina · 7:23-CV-056660-JD
“Plaintiffs filed this Moehrl copycat Class Action Complaint on November 13, 2023, which alleges that the Defendants in this case conspired to require Plaintiffs home sellers to pay buyer brokers’ commissions at an inflated rate when listing a property on Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) sites within South Carolina”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On February 1, 2024, we entered a nationwide class settlement under which the definition of the settlement class and scope of the release would resolve the claims alleged in this case.”
John Davis v. Inga Dow, Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Gary Keller, and Josh Team
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2022-10-27 · United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division · 4:22 cv-00970-O
“Plaintiff filed the Litigation on October 27, 2022, alleging claims against Inga Dow, for among other things, abuse of process for filing the above-described lawsuit, against Keller Williams Realty, Inc.”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Plaintiff has filed a demand for arbitration, and an arbitrator has been appointed. Defendants will continue to vigorously defend against the matter.”
Judah Leeder individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2021-01-27 · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 1:21-cv-00430
“Plaintiffs filed this Moehrl copycat Class Action Complaint on January 27, 2021, which alleges that the Defendants in this case conspired to require Plaintiff home buyers to pay buyer brokers’ commissions at an inflated rate and/or inflated home prices when listing a property on a Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) site”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On February 20, 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the Sherman Act claim but permitted the plaintiffs to pursue various state antitrust and consumer protection statute claims. We will continue to defend ourselves in this matter.”
Gary Bauman, Mary Jane Bauman, and Jennifer Nosalek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. MLS Property Information Network, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2020-12-17 · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1:20-cv-12244
“Plaintiffs filed this Moehrl copycat Class Action Complaint on December 17, 2020, which alleges that the Defendants in this case conspired to require Plaintiff home sellers to pay buyer brokers’ commissions at an inflated rate when listing a property on a Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) site, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On February 1, 2024, we entered a nationwide class settlement under which the definition of the settlement class and scope of the release would resolve the claims alleged in this case.” (page 19)
Joshua Sitzer and Amy Winger, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated vs. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2020-03-30 · United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri · 4:19-cv-00332-SRB
“Plaintiffs filed this Moehrl copycat Class Action Complaint on March 30, 2020, which alleges that the Defendants in this case conspired to require Plaintiff home sellers to pay buyer brokers’ commissions at an inflated rate when listing a property on four Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) sites within Missouri, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On October 31, 2023, a jury issued a verdict against all Defendants in the case awarding the plaintiffs damages in the amount of $1,786,310,872 (which under antitrust law may be increased to $5,358,932,616) to be reduced by existing and possible future settlements entered into between the Plaintiffs and specific Defendants.”
Christopher Moehrl, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2019-03-06 · United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois · 19-cv-1610
“Plaintiff filed this Class Action Complaint on March 6, 2019, which alleges that the Defendants in this case conspired to require plaintiff home sellers to pay buyer brokers’ commissions at an inflated rate when listing a property on twenty Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) sites, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On February 1, 2024, we entered a nationwide class settlement to settle the claims brought in this case, the Sitzer case (discussed below), and the Umpa case (discussed below).” (page 18)
This list shows 15 of the 32 matters Item 3 discloses; the rest are in the filing.
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 6.5% 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 | 10 years |
| Allowed renewalsℹ | 1 |
| Territory type | Protected territory |
| Protected territory | Yes |
| Exclusive territoryℹ | No |
| Online sales rightsℹ | Granted |
| 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 | 90 days |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Termination notice | 14 days |
| Curable defaultsℹ | 4 |
| Mandatory arbitration | Yes |
| Arbitration location | Austin, Texas |
| Jury trial waiver | Yes |
| Governing law | TX |
| Litigation count | 32 |
View Item 3 litigation summary
Multiple pending antitrust class actions (Moehrl/Sitzer/buyer-side) related to MLS buyer broker commission conspiracies; several TCPA class actions; individual business disputes (Davis, Basinski, Morris, Fetick, Coffey, Montalbano); global $70M settlement of Moehrl/Sitzer/Umpa cases achieved in 2024; several concluded cases settled including $40M TCPA class settlement (DeShay)
Items 10, 11
Training & Operations
- Classroom training
- 27 hrs
- On-the-job training
- 0 hrs
- Training location
- Austin, Texas or another location designated by franchisor
- Ongoing training
- Required
- Time to open
- 3 mo
- From signing to launch
- Site selection
- franchisee
- Franchisor financing
- Not offered
- Item 10
- POS system
- CommandMC
- Operating tech stack
Items 5 & 11
Franchisor Support
Technology: CommandMC
Item 20 · call current owners
Franchisee Contacts
952 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 Keller Williams franchise?
The total investment to open a Keller Williams franchise ranges from $182K – $336K, 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 Keller Williams franchise owners earn?
Keller Williams 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 Keller Williams?
Keller Williams is franchised by Keller Williams Realty, LLC. Its parent company is KW Intermediate Co LLC. The ultimate parent named in the FDD is Trident Keller Williams Realty Holdings, Inc.. Source: FDD Item 1, 2025 filing.
What is Item 19 in the Keller Williams 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 Keller Williams FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is Keller Williams's franchise failure rate?
SBA 7(a) loan charge-off data is not available for Keller Williams (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 Keller Williams franchise locations are there?
As of their most recent FDD filing, Keller Williams has 773 total units in the United States, including 762 franchised units and 11 company-owned units. 9 new units were opened in the latest reporting year.
Is Keller Williams a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict rates Keller Williams as a B-grade franchise with a verdict score of 64 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 Keller Williams, 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.