Pure Barre Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026
- Investment
- $445K – $736K
- Disclosed sales
- $393K
- gross sales, not profit
- SBA charge-off
- 3.3%
- on 171 loans
Data from FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records
Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026
A Pure Barre franchise requires a total initial investment of $445K – $736K, including a $60K franchise fee and an ongoing 7.0% royalty[2]. Per the 2026 FDD, average unit revenue was $393K[2]. SBA 7(a) loans show a 3.3% charge-off rate across 171 loans[1]. 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: low - issued within the last 12 months
Evidence: strong✓ Investment (Item 7)✓ Item 19 status✓ Units and owners (Item 20)✓ SBA loan coverage✓ Litigation (Item 3)✓ Financial statements (Item 21)✓ Franchisor identityhow this is scored8 of 8 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing.
Overview
- Investment
- $445K – $736K
- 30th pct Recreation & …
- Avg gross sales
- $393K
- Outlet subset2nd pct Recreation & …
- Royalty
- 7.0%
- 26th pct Recreation & …
- Units
- 617
- 53rd pct Recreation & …
- SBA charge-off
- 3.3%
- % of SBA 7(a) loans not repaid · median varies by category
Quick verdict · Recreation & Entertainment · color = vs category peers
Green = favorable by >10% vs Recreation & Entertainment 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 $445K – $736K including a $60K franchise fee, 7.0% ongoing royalty.
- RETURNSAverage unit revenue of $393K/year (median $363K) (reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system).
- RISKVerdict B (Above average), verdict score 58/100 (higher is better). SBA loan charge-off rate of 3.3% across 171 loans (well below the franchise average, based on all SBA 7(a) franchise lending, 2010–2025).
- GROWTHFlat: no net change in franchised outlets in the latest year (14 opened, 14 closed) (Item 20).
- FLAGItem 4 discloses a bankruptcy of an officer or of a company an officer ran, not of the franchisor. Review Item 4 for details.
Item 1 · who you're contracting with
The Franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- PB Franchising SPV, LLC
- Parent company
- XPOF Assetco, LLC
- FDD Item 1, page 8 of the 2026 FDD
- Ultimate parent
- Xponential Fitness, Inc. (NYSE: XPOF)
- FDD Item 1, page 8 of the 2026 FDD
- Predecessor
- PB Franchising, LLC
- Prior franchisor entity
- CEO title
- Chief Executive Officer
- Michael Nuzzo
- Incorporated in
- Delaware
- HQ
- 17877 Von Karman Ave., Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92614
Same owner · FDD Item 1, page 8
8 other brands on this site name Xponential Fitness, Inc. (NYSE: XPOF) as parent or ultimate parent in their own FDD.
Portfolio: Xponential Fitness
Grouped by the owner's name as each filing prints it (this page: the 2026 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
Franchisor of Pure Barre branded fitness studios offering barre-based group fitness classes
- CEO
- Michael Nuzzo
- Headquarters
- CA
- Founded
- 2012
- FDD year
- 2026
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost is about typical for a recreation & entertainment franchise (near the category median).
Source: FDD 2026 · Items 5–7
FDD Item 7 · 2026 filing
Initial investment breakdown
| Cost component | Low | High |
|---|---|---|
| Initial franchise fee | $60K | $60K |
| Working capital (3–6 mo) | $19K | $43K |
| Equipment, build-out, other | $366K | $633K |
| Total initial investment | $445K | $736K |
Source: Pure Barre 2026 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
- $445K – $736K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Liquid capital req'd
- $19K – $43K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Franchise fee
- $60K – $60K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Royalty
- 7.0%
- typical 6–8%
- Ad fund
- 2.0%
- typical 3–5%
Ongoing fees · Item 6
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 7.0% of gross sales |
| Marketing / ad fund | 2.0% of gross sales |
| Technology fee | $4K |
| Training fee | $8K |
| Transfer fee | $10K |
| Renewal fee | $10K |
What do units actually make?
Average unit sales run 51% below the recreation & entertainment norm.
Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system
Source: FDD 2026 · Item 19
Single-unit · not modelled
Returns at a glance
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit, and the operating costs that turn one into the other are in no filing. We publish no modelled return for Pure Barre until someone supplies them — yours, in the models below.
—
Not modelled yet
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.
Total invested capital · disclosed
$622K
Item 7 initial investment plus working capital, as filed — the one figure here that needs no assumption.
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
What one unit earns on your invested capital
Model A · Single-Unit Return
Computes unlevered return on invested capital (ROIC) for a single franchise unit, read against the 30–60% reference band · Yale SOM, Post-MBA Path Exhibit 2 (2023). Below that band a passive index fund likely outperforms; above it the franchisor has pricing power you're subsidizing.
Note: Item 19 revenue is what the franchisor discloses, and it is the top line only — gross sales are not profit. No FDD discloses the operating costs that turn one into the other, so those fields start empty and nothing is modelled until you supply them from your own lease quote, labor market and build-out budget.
Returns model · single-unit ROIC
What would one Pure Barre unit return on the cash you put in?
Illustrative category typicals — not sourced to any filing, survey or sample. Replace them with figures from franchisee validation calls before you rely on the output.
Unlevered ROIC · per unit
Your modelled return on total invested capital, before any debt financing.
—
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.
What 25 units return when you use SBA financing
Model B · Return on Equity: Debt-Financed Acquisition
Models a 25-unit portfolio acquisition financed with an SBA 7(a) loan. Shows equity IRR (your return on cash invested), DSCR (how safely the cash flow covers debt service), and the capital stack (SBA + seller + equity breakdown).
This is the “search fund” or “entrepreneurship through acquisition” scenario: you buy an existing multi-unit operator, use leverage to amplify returns, and either operate or hire management. The 25-unit size is the typical minimum for an SBA-backed franchise portfolio acquisition to pencil as a full-time income.
What “return on equity” means here: if you put in $500K of your own cash and the business generates enough EBITDA to pay down debt and grow, your equity IRR is the annual return on that $500K, including the value created when you eventually sell. Target IRR for a search fund is typically 25–35%.
Not modelled yet
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.
A 25-unit return is built on a per-unit EBITDA. Fill in the operating costs in Model A above and this model runs on that figure, or take the whole scenario to the full ROI workbench, where the portfolio and LBO models accept your own per-unit economics directly.
These models are for research and scenario planning only. Not investment advice. Actual results depend on your specific location, management, and market conditions. Consult a franchise attorney and accountant before signing any franchise agreement.
Item 19 · Source: 2026 FDD
Financial Performance
Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system
- Avg gross sales
- $393K
- Per unit, per year
- Median gross sales
- $363K
Gross sales are revenue before expenses — not profit. Actual owner earnings depend on rent, labor, royalties, marketing fees, and debt service.
- Item 19 type
- Gross Revenue quartile chart for Qualified Studios (full year 2025)
- Sample size
- 606 outlets
- vs category median 5 · large
- Range (low → high)
- $69K→$1.6MCited, not corroborated — printed on page 72 of the 2026 FDD. Nothing else in our record independently restates or re-derives it.
- Cohort dispersion (min → max)
- Quartile band
- $213K→$624K
- Bottom 25% → top 25%
- Reporting year
- 2025
- Fiscal year the figures cover
- Source filing
- FDD 2026
- Disclosed in the 2026 filing, covering 2025
Compared against 165 Recreation & Entertainment brands
Revenue is only 0.7x the investment. This means each unit may take 5+ years to recoup the initial outlay at typical margins.
Operator outlook
What the numbers say
Data-driven interpretation of this brand's financial disclosures, fee structure, and system trajectory.
Unit economics
Average unit generates $393K/year in gross sales. Revenue-to-investment ratio: 0.7x. Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system.
Fee burden
7.0% royalty + 2.0% ad fund.
Operator retention
System roughly stable (+1.0% 3-year CAGR) with 617 units.
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 Recreation & Entertainment medians
How Pure Barre Compares
Category median of published Recreation & Entertainment 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
- 617
- Opened
- 14
- Last reporting year
- Closed
- 14
- Terminated
- 1
- Franchisor ended the franchise (per Item 20)
- Turnover rate
- 2.3%
- Company-owned
- 0
- Corporate units in the system
- % franchised
- 100%
- vs corporate-owned
- Net growth (3-yr)
- +1.0%
- Net unit change over 3 years
- 3-yr CAGR
- +1.0%
- Compounded over last 3 years
Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers
- Terminated
- 1
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.
- Total loans
- 171
- Loan volume
- $39.7M
- Median loan
- $215K
- 50th percentile
- Charge-off rate
- 3.3%
- on 171 loans · rates vary by category · see methodology
Historical SBA 7(a) lending data, not predictive of future performance. How SBA charge-off rates are calculated
- Repayment rate (PIF)
- 96.7%
- 5-yr charge-off
- 0.0%
- Loans approved 2021+
- Active lenders
- 89
- Defaults
- 3
- Typical loan rate
- 7.0%
- avg rate to borrowers
- vs industry
- N/A
- NAICS 7139
- Jobs supported
- 2,374
- 6.0 per loan
- Lender concentration
- 12%
- top lender's share
Borrower mix: 68% went to startups / new businesses, 32% to established operators
Vintage analysis
Pure Barre charge-off rate by loan vintage
Top lenders financing Pure Barre franchisees
Showing 3 of 89 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 Pure Barre from SBA 7(a) FOIA data.
- Principal loss rate
- 2.4%
- Avg SBA guarantee
- 72%
- Avg interest rate
- 7.02%
- Avg chargeoff amount
- $318K
- Lender concentration
- 11.7%
- Job velocity
- 6.0 per $100K
- Startup risk premium
- +3.8pp
- Jobs supported
- 2,374
Top SBA lendersTop lender holds 12% of loans
| # | Lender | Loans | Volume | Default % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 20 | N/A | N/A | |
| 2 | 9 | N/A | N/A | |
| 3 | 9 | N/A | N/A | |
| 4 | 5 | N/A | N/A | |
| 5 | 5 | N/A | N/A |
Geographic failure vector
| State | Loans | Defaults | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| TXTexas | 23 | 0 | 0.0% |
| INIndiana | 15 | 0 | 0.0% |
| CACalifornia | 13 | 1 | 12.5% |
| MAMassachusetts | 10 | 0 | 0.0% |
| MIMichigan | 9 | 0 | 0.0% |
| WAWashington | 9 | 0 | 0.0% |
| GAGeorgia | 8 | 0 | 0.0% |
| ILIllinois | 8 | 1 | 20.0% |
| OHOhio | 8 | 0 | 0.0% |
| MDMaryland | 6 | 0 | 0.0% |
SBA 7(a) lending trend
Borrower profile
Source: SBA 7(a) + 504 FOIA loan-level data, matched by FranchiseVerdict
What could kill this investment?
SBA loans charge off at 3.3% — 80% below the 16.0% national norm, i.e. lower lender-observed risk.
Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA · FDD Items 3, 21
Risk analysis
FranchiseVerdict rating + FDD Items 3, 4, 8, 16, 21
Risk & Legal
Litigation (Item 3)
Subject: the franchisor is a named party (defendant).
Multiple pending franchisee lawsuits/arbitrations across Xponential-affiliated brands alleging FDD disclosure violations, fraud in the inducement, and breach of contract; several concluded matters including a settled Consent Order and multi-million dollar settlements
Largest disclosed settlement: $17,000,000
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
Subject: an officer. An officer’s own bankruptcy or a company an officer ran, not the franchisor’s
In Re Timothy Paul Weiderhoft and Dena Rose Weiderhoft (Case No. 2:23-bk-05397-BKM; Bankruptcy Court, District of Arizona). On August 9, 2023, Xponential’s Chief Operating Officer of North America, Timothy Weiderhoft, and his wife filed a personal Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition after an unrelated restaurant venture failed in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes
Supplier relationship · Items 8 & 16
- Franchisor sells you products: Yes
- Must buy proprietary products: Yes
- Restricted to system-approved products: Yes
Litigation case detail21 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Pending (2)
JSP Group LLC; Spencer O. Pettit; Jesse T. Pettit v P.B. Franchising SPV LLC
pendingBrought by a franchisee · filed 2024-07-31 · American Arbitration Association · 01-24-0007-0509
“JSP Group LLC; Spencer O. Pettit; Jesse T. Pettit v P.B. Franchising SPV LLC, filed July 31, 2024, American Arbitration Association, Case No. 01-24-0007-0509. In September 2024, a demand for arbitration was initiated by a franchisee and its owners, for a monetary claim of $299,999 due to alleged fraud, breach of contract, and violation of state unfair trade practice statutes.”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Pure Barre brought a counterclaim against Claimants and Xponential was removed from the complaint by joint stipulation. The arbitration hearing is scheduled for February 2027.”
Shannon McGill et al. v. Xponential Fitness LLC, et al.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2023-11-22 · United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio · 2:23-cv-03909
“Shannon McGill et al. v. Xponential Fitness LLC, et al., filed November 22, 2023, United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 2:23-cv-03909. Former employees of Mitch Brown and/or his legal entity, MD Pro Fitness, LLC (the “Brown Defendants”), filed the above captioned putative class action complaint against Xponential;”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The parties agreed to settle the matter in an agreement under which the Xpo Defendants would pay $2,150,000 to the plaintiffs. The settlement will be finalized upon court approval.”
Concluded (1)
In the Matter of: The Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation v. Xponential Fitness, Inc., et al.
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI)
“In the Matter of: The Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation v. Xponential Fitness, Inc., et al. On November 4, 2024, in order to avoid the expense of a hearing and other possible court proceedings, the Commissioner of California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (“DFPI”) and us, Affiliate SPV”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“sets forth the agreement of the DFPI Parties, without admitting nor denying any of the Commissioner’s findings, to desist and refrain from violating Sections 31110, 31200 and 31201 of the California Corporations Code and to pay an administrative penalty of $450,000.” (page 19)
Parent, affiliates and predecessor
Pending (8)
Alex Zaltsman, Fitwell License Holdings, LLC, XPO Fitness Operator, LLC, RH Ventures II, LLC, and PB Ventures I, LLC v. Xponential Fitness LLC, Row House Franchise, LLC, and PB Franchising, LLC
pendingBrought by a franchisee · PB Franchising, LLC (Predecessor), with parent Xponential Fitness LLC and affiliate Row House Franchise, LLC · filed 2025-02-26 · American Arbitration Association · 01-25-0001-1348
“Alex Zaltsman, Fitwell License Holdings, LLC, XPO Fitness Operator, LLC, RH Ventures II, LLC, and PB Ventures I, LLC v. Xponential Fitness LLC, Row House Franchise, LLC, and PB Franchising, LLC, American Arbitration Association, Case No. 01-25-0001-1348.”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The Zaltsman Defendants, except Xponential, filed an Answering Statement; an arbitrator has been selected and the evidentiary hearing is set for 2026.” (page 15)
Nickle Acquisition LLC v. Xponential Fitness, Inc. et al.
pendingBrought by a franchisee · Xponential Fitness, Inc. (XFI), with affiliates CycleBar Franchising, LLC (CB), CB SPV, BFT, BFT SPV, parents Xponential and Assetco, and individuals · filed 2025-02-03 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange · 30-2025-01459041-CU-AT-CXC
“Nickle Acquisition LLC v. Xponential Fitness, Inc. et al., filed February 3, 2025, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2025-01459041-CU-AT-CXC (the “Nickle Acquisition Lawsuit”). This is an action filed by the same attorney who represents the AKT Plaintiffs and the Y6 Plaintiffs in the AKT Lawsuit and the EA Lawsuit, respectively.”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“This matter settled in principle with the Nickle Defendants agreeing to pay $200,000 to the plaintiffs. The settlement agreement is in the process of being finalized.”
Rumble Marina Co. and Jason Mighdoll v. Rumble Fitness, LLC, Rumble 1001, LLC, and Xponential Fitness, Inc.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Xponential Fitness, Inc. (XFI), with Rumble Fitness, LLC and Rumble 1001, LLC · filed 2025-07-18 · Superior Court of the State of California, San Francisco County · CGC25627419
“Rumble Marina Co. and Jason Mighdoll v. Rumble Fitness, LLC, Rumble 1001, LLC, and Xponential Fitness, Inc., Superior Court of the State of California, San Francisco County, Case No. CGC25627419. On July 18, 2025, Rumble Marina Co. and its purported President, Jason Mighdoll (collectively, the “Mighdoll Plaintiffs”), filed a lawsuit against Rumble Fitness, LLC, Rumble 1001, LLC, and XFI”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
XPOF Assetco, LLC, et al ats Waughland Investment Corp. et al
pendingBrought by a franchisee · XPOF Assetco, LLC (Assetco, the franchisor's direct parent), with Stretch Lab Franchise, LLC, XPOF Issuer, LLC, Xponential Fitness, Inc. and individuals · filed 2025-09-11
“XPOF Assetco, LLC, et al ats Waughland Investment Corp. et al, Notice of Arbitration delivered September 11, 2025. On September 11, 2025, a Stretch Lab franchisee and area developer in Toronto, Ontario, delivered a Notice of Arbitration (as amended April 2, 2026) asserting claims against XPOF Assetco, LLC, Stretch Lab Franchise, LLC, XPOF Issuer, LLC, Xponential Fitness, Inc.”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The franchisor intends to dispute and vigorously defend the franchisee’s claim as well as to assert a counterclaim arising from the abandonment of the franchises and unlawful competition from the franchise locations following their rebranding.”
City of Taylor General Employees Retirement System v. Xponential Fitness, Inc., et al.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Xponential Fitness, Inc. (XFI), with current and former officers, directors and securities underwriters · filed 2024-02-09 · United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division · 8:24-cv-00285
“In the consolidated complaint filed in the Taylor General Lawsuit on July 26, 2024, the plaintiffs, who purport to be shareholders of XFI, allege that certain defendants made certain omissions and misstatements of material facts in certain of XFI’s publicly disclosed and filed documents between July 23, 2021 and May 10, 2024”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“XFI and certain of its current and former officers, directors, shareholders, and securities underwriters have been named in five securities-related lawsuits that are pending as of the date of this Disclosure Document.”
Gideon Akande v. Anthony Geisler, et al. (Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Action)
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Xponential Fitness, Inc. (XFI, nominal defendant), with current and former officers and directors · filed 2024-03-10 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2:24-cv-01928 (Akande); 2:24-cv-3937 (Ayers); 8:25-cv-00258 (Nelson)
“In this shareholder derivative lawsuit, the plaintiff purports to bring claims on behalf XFI against certain of its current and former officers and directors, alleging that the defendants are liable to XFI for certain of the SEC Claims at issue in the consolidated Taylor General Lawsuit and also (i) breached fiduciary duties, mismanaged XFI’s business, and wasted XFI’s assets”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Action is stayed pending final resolution of the consolidated Taylor General Lawsuit and WBP Pension Fund Lawsuit.”
Dance Fitness Michigan LLC, et al. v. AKT Franchise, LLC, et al.
pendingBrought by a franchisee · AKT Franchise, LLC and AKT Franchise SPV, LLC (Former Portfolio Brand Franchisors), with parents XPOF Assetco, LLC, Xponential Fitness LLC and Xponential Fitness, Inc., and individuals · filed 2023-08-30 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange · 30-2023-01345433-CU-AT-CXC
“Dance Fitness Michigan LLC, et al. v. AKT Franchise, LLC, et al., filed August 30, 2023 (as amended on March 28, 2025), Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2023-01345433-CU- AT-CXC (the “AKT Lawsuit”). This action was filed by certain former AKT franchisees and their purported owners”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“agreement in principle under which the AKT Defendants would pay Laura Hannan and Amanda Davis $242,000 and $100,000. This matter is at the pleadings stage.” (page 14)
Enlightened Armadillo, Inc., et al. v. Yoga Six Franchise, LLC, et al.
pendingBrought by a franchisee · Yoga Six Franchise, LLC (YS) and Yoga Six Franchise SPV, LLC (YS SPV), with parents XPOF Assetco, LLC, Xponential Fitness LLC and Xponential Fitness, Inc., and individuals · filed 2023-11-22 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange · 30-2023-01367265-CU-AT-CXC
“Enlightened Armadillo, Inc., et al. v. Yoga Six Franchise, LLC, et al., filed November 22, 2023, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2023-01367265-CU-AT-CXC (the “EA Lawsuit”). This is an action filed by the same attorney who represents the AKT Plaintiffs in the AKT Lawsuit. The plaintiffs are two Yoga Six franchisees”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The Y6 Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the enforceability of the mandatory arbitration provisions in the franchise agreements, rescission of their franchise agreements, actual and special damages, attorney’s fees, costs and interest. Trial is scheduled for October 2026.”
Concluded (1)
FTC v. Xponential Fitness Inc.
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · Xponential Fitness, Inc. (XFI) · filed 2026-03-18 · U.S. Dist. Court for the Central Dist. of California · 8:26-cv-00610
“FTC v. Xponential Fitness Inc., Case 8:26-cv-00610 (filed March 18, 2026, U.S. Dist. Court for the Central Dist. of California). This matter involves certain former and current franchise brands that Xponential Fitness, Inc. owned: AKT, CycleBar, Pure Barre, and Yoga Six.”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“As part of the stipulated order, the company agreed (among other things) to pay $17 million in redress to certain franchisees, not to violate the FTC Act and the FTC Franchise Rule, and to adopt certain recordkeeping and administrative procedures.”
Officers and directors (individuals, not the company)
Pending (3)
Gipsman v. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. et al.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Robert Julian (Interim Chief Financial Officer), named as a director of Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. · filed 2025 · Delaware Chancery Court · 202501491
“Gipsman v. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 202501491 (filed Dec. 2, 2025, Delaware Chancery Court). This is a stockholder derivative complaint (a companion case to the securities claims noted below) that was filed against a company and certain of its current and former officers and directors.”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
In re Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. Securities Litigation
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Robert Julian (Interim Chief Financial Officer), named as a director of Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. · filed 2025 · U.S. Dist. Court for the Middle Dist. of Tenn. · 3:24-cv-00334
“In re Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 3:24-cv-00334 (filed Feb. 4, 2025, U.S. Dist. Court for the Middle Dist. of Tenn.). This is a class action complaint alleging violation of federal securities laws against Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. and certain members of its board of directors, including Mr. Robert Julian.”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Corwin v. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. et al.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Robert Julian (Interim Chief Financial Officer), named as a director of Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. · filed 2024-05-16 · U.S. Dist. Court for the Middle Dist. of Tenn. · 3:24-cv-00615
“Corwin v. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 3:24-cv-00615 (filed May 16, 2024, U.S. Dist. Court for the Middle Dist. of Tenn.). This is a shareholder derivative complaint that was filed against a company and certain of its current and former officers and directors.”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
This list shows 15 of the 21 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 9.0% 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 | 10 years |
|---|---|
| Renewal term | 10 years |
| Allowed renewalsℹ | 1 |
| Territory type | Protected territory |
| Protected territory | Yes |
| Exclusive territoryℹ | No |
| Territory population | 15,000 |
| Franchisor can compete | Yes |
| Hire a manager? | Allowed |
| Owner-operator | Optional |
| Non-compete (years)ℹ | 2 years |
| Non-compete (miles)ℹ | 10 mi |
| Right of first refusalℹ | Yes |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Mandatory arbitration | Yes |
| Arbitration location | Irvine, California (JAMS) |
| Governing law | California |
| Litigation count | 21 |
View Item 3 litigation summary
Multiple pending franchisee lawsuits/arbitrations across Xponential-affiliated brands alleging FDD disclosure violations, fraud in the inducement, and breach of contract; several concluded matters including a settled Consent Order and multi-million dollar settlements
Items 10, 11
Training & Operations
- Classroom training
- 29 hrs
- On-the-job training
- 69 hrs
- Training location
- Online; corporate headquarters in Irvine, CA; or other designated training location
- Ongoing training
- Required
- Site selection
- franchisee proposes, franchisor approves
- 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 Pure Barre franchise?
The total investment to open a Pure Barre franchise ranges from $445K – $736K, with an initial franchise fee of $60K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).
What do Pure Barre franchise owners earn?
According to Item 19 of the Pure Barre FDD, the average gross sales per unit is $393K. The median is $363K. Important context: Reported for a subset of outlets rather than the whole system. Note: this is gross revenue, not profit. Actual owner earnings vary based on location, operating costs, and management.
Who owns Pure Barre?
Pure Barre is franchised by PB Franchising SPV, LLC. Its parent company is XPOF Assetco, LLC. The ultimate parent named in the FDD is Xponential Fitness, Inc. (NYSE: XPOF). Source: FDD Item 1, 2026 filing.
What is Item 19 in the Pure Barre 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 Pure Barre FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is Pure Barre's franchise failure rate?
Based on SBA 7(a) loan data, Pure Barre has a charge-off rate of 3.3% across 171 loans, meaning 3.3% of franchise loans were charged off. Charge-off rates are one proxy for franchise risk, though they do not capture all closures. This data comes from FOIA-sourced SBA lending records.
How many Pure Barre franchise locations are there?
As of their most recent FDD filing, Pure Barre has 617 total units in the United States, including 617 franchised units and 0 company-owned units. 14 new units were opened in the latest reporting year.
Is Pure Barre a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict rates Pure Barre as a B-grade franchise with a verdict score of 58 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 Pure Barre, you can request corrections or provide updated information.
Other Recreation & Entertainment franchises
Compare similar franchise opportunities in the Recreation & Entertainment 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.