Nap Tea Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026
- Investment
- $624K – $777K
- Disclosed sales
- not disclosed
- SBA charge-off
- Not SBA-matched
Data from FDD filing
Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology
Nap Tea is a bubble tea franchise, founded by a popular YouTuber, serving new-style teas with a calming, wellness theme. Franchisees run the shops, managing drink prep, inventory, and counter service.
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026
A Nap Tea franchise requires a total initial investment of $624K – $777K, including a $300K franchise fee and an ongoing 4.0% royalty[2]. This fee is for a master or area-representative grant rather than a single unit, so it is not comparable with the single-unit fees shown for other brands. 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: F (Weakest tier), an editorial assessment, not investment advice. Run a live ROI scan →
Limited operating history: franchising since 2026. A system this young has fewer than three years of Item 20 outlet history and rarely enough SBA loans for a charge-off rate, so its grade rests on less evidence than an established system's. Read its Item 20 tables and talk to its first franchisees before relying on the grade. Other new franchisors
Sources, dates and evidence
FDD issued: · Data extracted: · Last cited check: · Staleness risk: low - issued within the last 12 months
Evidence: partial✓ 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 4 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing.
Overview
- Investment
- $624K – $777K
- 83rd pct Service Resta…
- Avg gross sales
- N/A
- 0 outlets
- Royalty
- 4.0%
- 3rd pct Service Resta…
- Units
- 0
- 0th 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 $624K – $777K including a $300K franchise fee, 4.0% ongoing royalty. This fee is for a master or area-representative grant rather than a single unit, so it is not comparable with the single-unit fees shown for other brands.
- 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 F (Weakest tier), verdict score 26/100 (higher is better).
- GROWTHFlat: no net change in franchised outlets in the latest year (0 opened, 0 closed) (Item 20).
- FLAGAuditor disclosed a going-concern note, which flagged doubt about the franchisor's ability to continue operations. Verify against the latest FDD.
Item 1 · who you're contracting with
The Franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- Nap Tea USA Corp
- Parent company
- Nap Tea Co., Ltd. (Nap Tea-Taiwan)
- FDD Item 1, page 6 of the 2026 FDD
- Ultimate parent
- Nap Tea Co., Ltd. (Taiwan)
- FDD Item 1, page 6 of the 2026 FDD
- CEO title
- Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director
- Cheng Han Lin
- Founder active
- Yes
- Original founder still leading the business
- Incorporated in
- DE
- HQ
- 131 Continental Dr., Suite 301, Newark DE 19713
- Auditor
- Simon & Edward, LLP
- Audited financials
- ⚠ Going-concern note
- Disclosed in FDD 2026
- Auditor flagged doubt about continued operations. Verify against the latest FDD before deciding.
Independent franchisee associations
- Independent Franchisee Association
Franchisee-led councils or alliances disclosed in Item 20. Indicates operator voice.
Overview
About
- CEO
- Cheng Han Lin
- Headquarters
- DE
- Founded
- 2024
- FDD year
- 2026
- States available
- 0
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost runs 44% above the typical quick-service restaurants franchise.
Source: FDD 2026 · Items 5–7
This fee is for a master or area-representative grant rather than a single unit, so it is not comparable with the single-unit fees shown for other brands.
Full Item 7 breakdown14 line items
Initial investment breakdown
| Line item | Low | High | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial Subfranchise Feenot refundable | $300K | $300K | |
| Security Deposit | $30K | $30K | |
| Training Expensesnot refundable | $8K | $10K | |
| Point of Sale systemnot refundable | $2K | $3K | |
| Software Upgrade Feenot refundable | $3K | $3K | |
| Interior/Exterior Signs and Graphicsnot refundable | $100K | $140K | |
| Professional Feesnot refundable | $5K | $10K | |
| Business Licenses and Permitsnot refundable | $3K | $5K | |
| Leaseholdnot refundable | $50K | $80K | |
| Inventory and Supplies | $20K | $40K | |
| Equipmentnot refundable | $45K | $60K | |
| Advertising and Promotion | $25K | $30K | |
| Business Insurance | $3K | $6K | |
| Additional Funds - 3 monthsnot refundable | $30K | $60K | |
| Total initial investment | $624K | $777K |
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
- $624K – $777K
- Bottom third — review vs category
- Liquid capital req'd
- $30K – $60K
- Middle of category vs category
- Franchise fee
- $300K – $300K
- Master/area fee
- Royalty
- 4.0%
- typical 6–8%
- Ad fund
- $20,000-$30,000 first year; $10,000-$15,000 per year ther…
- Total fee load
- 4.0%
- vs 9–13% typical
Ongoing fees · Item 6
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 4.0% of gross sales |
| Technology fee | $3K |
| Training fee | $8K |
| Transfer fee | $35K |
| Renewal fee | $50K |
| Inventory (initial) | $20K – $40K |
| Total fee load | 4.0% of rev |
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
Nap Tea 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 Nap Tea 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, ad fund rate, 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: 2026 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 4.0% — below the Quick-Service Restaurants median of 7.5%.
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.
Multi-unit rate
Only 14% 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 Nap Tea Compares
Category median of published Quick-Service Restaurants brands that report the figure; the middle half spans the 25th to 75th percentile and n counts the brands behind it. Medians are used because a few very large systems pull an average far from the typical brand. Revenue is disclosed gross sales, not profit.
Is the system healthy?
Source: FDD 2026 · Item 20
Unit growth
Item 20 · unit dynamics
The Growth Chart
- Total units
- 0
- Opened
- 0
- Last reporting year
- Closed
- 0
- Terminated
- 0
- Franchisor ended the franchise (per Item 20)
- Non-renewed
- 0
- Term expired, not renewed (per Item 20)
- Company-owned
- 0
- Corporate units in the system
- Multi-unit owners
- 14.3%
Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers
- Terminated
- 0
- Not renewed
- 0
- Signed, not yet open
- 0
- Item 20 Table 5
- Projected new
- 6
- Franchisor's next-year forecast
Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.
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?
The auditor flagged going-concern doubt (Item 21) — the single biggest risk here.
Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA · FDD Items 3, 21
Risk analysis
FranchiseVerdict rating + FDD Items 3, 4, 8, 16, 21
Risk & Legal
Pre-revenue franchise system with zero operating units, undisclosed unit economics, and corporate financial concerns creates extreme uncertainty around investment viability and franchisor support capability.
Litigation (Item 3)
Subject: officers or affiliates. The franchisor is not a named party in these cases.
No litigation is required to be disclosed in this Item
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None disclosed
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · Simon & Edward, LLP⚠ Going-concern note flagged
Franchisor revenue (Item 21)
Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)
Audited statements (year ended Dec 31, 2025 and inception Nov 12, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024) report $0 revenue; company organized Nov 12, 2024 with limited operating history and a stockholder's deficit. Auditor signed from Rowland Heights, CA (17506 Colima Road, Suite 101), Mar 2, 2026; firm name appears as a signature/logo not rendered in text.
Supplier relationship · Items 8 & 16
- Franchisor sells you products: Yes
- Kickbacks from required suppliers: Yes
- Must buy proprietary products: Yes
- Restricted to system-approved products: Yes
- Can negotiate own supplier terms: No
Score breakdown · what drove the 26 / 100 verdict
- 01MEDZero existing franchised units indicates brand has never successfully scaled or all units have failed/closed
- 02MINORNo Item 19 financial disclosure (average revenue/net income) prevents validation of $624k-$777k investment ROI
- 03MINORHigh franchise fee ($300k) represents 48% of total investment with zero proven unit economics to justify it
- 04MINOR5-year term is shorter than industry standard (10 years), suggesting franchisor may lack confidence in model longevity
- 05HIGHGoing Concern status indicates potential financial instability at corporate level, raising questions about franchisor viability
Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification
What are you signing up for?
Ongoing fees run about 4.0% of sales (royalty + ad fund), before rent and labor.
Source: FDD 2026 · Items 11, 12, 17
FDD Items 12, 15, 17 · continued from Risk & Legal
Contract & Territory Detail
| Initial term | 5 years |
|---|---|
| Renewal term | 5 years |
| Allowed renewalsℹ | 1 |
| Territory type | Exclusive territory |
| Protected territory | Yes |
| Exclusive territoryℹ | Yes |
| Territory population | 5,000,000 |
| Online sales rightsℹ | Restricted |
| Franchisor can compete | No |
| Hire a manager? | Allowed |
| Owner-operator | Required |
| Non-compete (years)ℹ | 1 year |
| Non-compete (miles)ℹ | 25 mi |
| Right of first refusalℹ | No |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Termination notice | 60 days |
| Termination groundsℹ | 3 |
| Curable defaultsℹ | 4 |
| Mandatory arbitration | Yes |
| Arbitration location | California |
| Governing law | CA |
| Litigation count | 0 |
View Item 3 litigation summary
No litigation is required to be disclosed in this Item
Items 10, 11
Training & Operations
- Classroom training
- 80 hrs
- On-the-job training
- 0 hrs
- Training location
- Taiwan (franchisor's designated training facility)
- Ongoing training
- Required
- Time to open
- 9 mo
- From signing to launch
- Site selection
- Franchisee selects; franchisor must consent
- Franchisor financing
- Not offered
- Item 10
Items 5 & 11
Franchisor Support
Frequently asked questions
Frequently Asked Questions
How much does it cost to open a Nap Tea franchise?
The total investment to open a Nap Tea franchise ranges from $624K – $777K, with an initial franchise fee of $300K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD). This fee is for a master or area-representative grant rather than a single unit, so it is not comparable with the single-unit fees shown for other brands.
What do Nap Tea franchise owners earn?
Nap Tea 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 Nap Tea?
Nap Tea is franchised by Nap Tea USA Corp. Its parent company is Nap Tea Co., Ltd. (Nap Tea-Taiwan). The ultimate parent named in the FDD is Nap Tea Co., Ltd. (Taiwan). Source: FDD Item 1, 2026 filing.
What is Item 19 in the Nap Tea 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 Nap Tea FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is Nap Tea's franchise failure rate?
SBA 7(a) loan charge-off data is not available for Nap Tea (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.
Is Nap Tea a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict rates Nap Tea as a F-grade franchise with a verdict score of 26 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 Nap Tea, 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.