Re/Max Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026
- Investment
- $45K – $266K
- Disclosed sales
- not disclosed
- SBA charge-off
- 14.2%
- on 306 loans
Data from FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records
Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology
RE/MAX is a real-estate brokerage franchise where offices recruit and support commission-earning agents. Franchisees run independent brokerages competing on agent recruitment and productivity, paying the franchisor a share of gross commissions.
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026
A RE/MAX franchise requires a total initial investment of $45K – $266K, including a $18K – $38K franchise fee and an ongoing 1.0% 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. SBA 7(a) loans show a 14.2% charge-off rate across 306 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: 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 4 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing.
Overview
- Investment
- $45K – $266K
- 26th pct Real Estate
- Avg gross sales
- N/A
- Royalty
- 1.0%
- 0th pct Real Estate
- Units
- 3,150
- 88th pct Real Estate
- SBA charge-off
- 14.2%
- % of SBA 7(a) loans not repaid · median varies by category
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 $45K – $266K including a $18K franchise fee, 1.0% 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 55/100 (higher is better). SBA loan charge-off rate of 14.2% across 306 loans (above the 16% franchise average, based on all SBA 7(a) franchise lending, 2010–2025).
- GROWTHNegative: net -224 franchised outlets in the latest year (125 opened, 147 closed) (Item 20).
- LEGAL18 litigation matters disclosed in Item 3, higher than typical. Of the 15 listed on this page, 13 name the franchisor itself, 2 its parent, affiliates or predecessor. Pending claims are allegations, not findings.
Item 1 · who you're contracting with
The Franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- RE/MAX, LLC
- Parent company
- RMCO, LLC
- FDD Item 1, page 7 of the 2025 FDD
- Ultimate parent
- RE/MAX Holdings, Inc.
- FDD Item 1, page 7 of the 2025 FDD
- Predecessor
- RE/MAX International, Inc.
- Prior franchisor entity
- Incorporated in
- Delaware
- HQ
- 5075 South Syracuse Street, Denver, Colorado 80237-2712
- Auditor
- Ernst & Young LLP
- Audited financials
- Franchisor revenue
- $307.7M
- vs $325.7M prior year
Same owner · FDD Item 1, page 7
1 other brand on this site name RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. as parent or ultimate parent in their own FDD.
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
- Erik Carlson
- Headquarters
- CO
- Founded
- 1974
- FDD year
- 2025
- States available
- 51
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost runs 17% above the typical real estate franchise.
Source: FDD 2025 · Items 5–7
Full Item 7 breakdown10 line items
Initial investment breakdown
| Line item | Low | High | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial Franchise Feenot refundable | $18K | $38K | |
| Office set-up/improvementsnot refundable | $4K | $92K | |
| Exterior office signagenot refundable | $500 | $10K | |
| Furniture, fixtures and equipmentnot refundable | $2K | $20K | |
| Computer Systemnot refundable | $4K | $26K | |
| Inventory and suppliesnot refundable | $500 | $4K | |
| Education fees and expensesnot refundable | $4K | $9K | |
| Insurancenot refundable | $2K | $6K | |
| Licenses, Grand Opening, Utilities, Security Deposit, and other miscellaneous opening costsnot refundable | $1K | $11K | |
| Additional funds - 3 monthsnot refundable | $10K | $50K | |
| Total initial investment | $45K | $266K |
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
- $45K – $266K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Liquid capital req'd
- $10K – $50K
- Middle of category vs category
- Franchise fee
- $18K – $38K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Royalty
- 1.0%
- typical 6–8%
- Ad fund
- $128
- Total fee load
- 16.0%
- vs 9–13% typical
Ongoing fees · Item 6
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 1.0% |
| Technology fee | $15 |
| Transfer fee | $3K |
| Renewal fee | $13K |
| Inventory (initial) | $500 – $4K |
| Total fee load | 16.0% of rev |
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
RE/MAX 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 RE/MAX 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: 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 16.0% — above the Real Estate 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.
Operator retention
System contracting at -9.4% 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 Re/Max 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
- 3,150
- Opened
- 125
- Last reporting year
- Closed
- 147
- Terminated
- 101
- Franchisor ended the franchise (per Item 20)
- Non-renewed
- 92
- Term expired, not renewed (per Item 20)
- Turnover rate
- 7.9%
- Company-owned
- 0
- Corporate units in the system
- % franchised
- 100%
- vs corporate-owned
- Net growth (3-yr)
- -9.4%
- Net unit change over 3 years
- 3-yr CAGR
- -9.4%
- Compounded over last 3 years
Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers
- Terminated
- 101
- Not renewed
- 92
- Reacquired
- 0
- Franchisor bought back
Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.
Item 20 · 43 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.
Available to sell in · Item 12
- Indiana
- Wisconsin
States where the franchisor is registered to sell new franchises (FDD registration filings).
Where the owners are · Item 20 owner list
0 current owners across 0 states; 392 former (terminated, transferred or not renewed) listed separately.
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.
- Total loans
- 306
- Loan volume
- $128.0M
- Median loan
- $100K
- 50th percentile
- Charge-off rate
- 14.2%
- on 306 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)
- 85.8%
- 5-yr charge-off
- N/A
- Loans approved 2021+
- Active lenders
- 109
- Defaults
- 34
- Typical loan rate
- 6.1%
- avg rate to borrowers
- Franchised industry avg
- 14.8%
- brand beats franchise avg ↓
- Jobs supported
- 1,574
- 4.3 per loan
- Lender concentration
- 8%
- top lender's share
Borrower mix: 0% went to startups / new businesses, 100% to established operators
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.
Vintage analysis
Re/Max charge-off rate by loan vintage
Top lenders financing Re/Max franchisees
Showing 3 of 109 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 Re/Max from SBA 7(a) FOIA data.
- Principal loss rate
- 1.5%
- Avg SBA guarantee
- 71%
- Avg interest rate
- 6.12%
- Avg chargeoff amount
- $88K
- Lender concentration
- 8.0%
- Job velocity
- 4.3 per $100K
- NAICS benchmark
- 8.5%
- NAICS 531210
- Jobs supported
- 1,574
Top SBA lendersTop lender holds 8% of loans
| # | Lender | Loans | Volume | Default % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wells Fargo Bank National Association | 8 | $3.5M | 16.7% |
| 2 | The Huntington National Bank | 7 | $2.2M | 0.0% |
| 3 | Bank of America, National Association | 5 | $1.4M | 20.0% |
| 4 | KeyBank National Association | 5 | $373K | 0.0% |
| 5 | Enterprise Bank & Trust | 4 | $5.8M | 0.0% |
| 6 | JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association | 3 | $345K | 0.0% |
| 7 | PNC Bank, National Association | 3 | $746K | 0.0% |
| 8 | Popular Bank | 2 | $1.5M | 0.0% |
| 9 | The Bank of Bennington | 2 | $93K | 0.0% |
| 10 | United Bank | 2 | $45K | 0.0% |
Geographic failure vector
| State | Loans | Defaults | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| CACalifornia | 14 | 1 | 7.1% |
| TXTexas | 10 | 0 | 0.0% |
| ILIllinois | 8 | 0 | 0.0% |
| OHOhio | 7 | 0 | 0.0% |
| NJNew Jersey | 5 | 0 | 0.0% |
| COColorado | 4 | 0 | 0.0% |
| NCNorth Carolina | 4 | 2 | 66.7% |
| NYNew York | 4 | 0 | 0.0% |
| ALAlabama | 3 | 0 | 0.0% |
| ARArkansas | 3 | 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 14.2% — 11% 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
Parent-level financials show negative equity -$67.8M and financial_distress flagged, plus 13 litigation matters dominated by the nationwide buyer-broker antitrust litigation (RE/MAX settled for $55M). No Item 19 disclosed. Litigation is heavy but system is large (3,150 units) and net income positive $11.3M; equity is parent-level so not brand-penalized.
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None disclosed
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · Ernst & Young LLP
Franchisor revenue (Item 21)
Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)
Franchisor financials (RE/MAX, LLC consolidated): FY2024 total revenue $307.685M, net income $11.293M; FY2023 total revenue $325.671M, net loss $(61.229)M; FY2022 total revenue $353.386M, net income $20.714M. Total member's equity was negative in both 2023 (-$79.065M) and 2024 (-$67.773M), driven by historical distributions/debt rather than operating insolvency; no going-concern qualification was issued by the auditor (KPMG).
ⓘ 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: No
- Kickbacks from required suppliers: No
- Must buy proprietary products: No
- Restricted to system-approved products: Yes
- Can negotiate own supplier terms: Yes
Score breakdown · what drove the 55 / 100 verdict
- 01HIGH13 litigation matters incl. $55M antitrust settlement (Moehrl/Burnett/Nosalek)
- 02MINORParent-level negative equity -$67,773,000 (judge on operations)
- 03MINORNo Item 19 disclosure
- 04MINORNegative net unit growth -9.4%
- 05MINOROffset: $307.7M revenue, $11.3M net income
Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification
Litigation case detail18 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Pending (11)
RE/MAX, LLC vs. Beachside Ventures, Inc., James Sanders, John Sanders, Sandra Sanders, and Mary Diane Sanders
pendingBrought against a franchisee · filed 2025-02-07 · United States District Court for the District of Colorado · 25-cv-00409
“RE/MAX, LLC vs. Beachside Ventures, Inc., James Sanders, John Sanders, Sandra Sanders, and Mary Diane Sanders; Case No.: 25-cv-00409, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, filed on February 7, 2025.”Page 24 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
RE/MAX, LLC vs. Villager Real Estate Services, Inc.
pendingBrought against a franchisee · filed 2025-01-16 · Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division · 2025CH00481
“RE/MAX, LLC vs. Villager Real Estate Services, Inc., Case No.: 2025CH00481, pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, filed on January 16, 2025.”Page 24 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Homie Technology, Inc. v. National Association of Realtors, Anywhere Real Estate, Inc., Keller Williams Realty, Inc., HomeServices of America, Inc. HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX, LLC, and Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service, Inc.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2024-08-22 · United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division · 24-cv-00616
“Homie Technology, Inc. v. National Association of Realtors, Anywhere Real Estate, Inc., Keller Williams Realty, Inc., HomeServices of America, Inc. HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX, LLC, and Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service, Inc., Case No. 24- cv-00616, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division.”Page 24 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The lawsuit alleges certain NAR rules, many of which are at issue in the Moehrl-related antitrust litigations, created a barrier to entry for Homie as a competitor, and that other defendants agreed and/or conspired to implement these rules and engaged in conduct that foreclosed Homie from competing.”
RE/MAX, LLC vs. JL United Realty, LLC and Cheng “Josie” Lin
pendingBrought against a franchisee · filed 2024-01-23 · United States District Court for the District of Colorado · 24-cv-00207
“RE/MAX, LLC vs. JL United Realty, LLC and Cheng “Josie” Lin; Case No.: 24-cv-00207, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, filed on January 23, 2024.”Page 24 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
William Siegle vs. RE/MAX, LLC and John/Jane Does 1-10
pendingBrought by a franchisee · filed 2023-02-01 · United States District Court for the District of Colorado · 23-cv-03102
“William Siegle vs. RE/MAX, LLC and John/Jane Does 1-10; Case No.: 23-cv-03102, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, filed on February 1, 2023. On February 1, 2023, the franchise owner of RE/MAX Hometown in New Jersey, William Siegle, abandoned his franchise and filed a complaint against RE/MAX, LLC in the Superior Court of New Jersey”Page 23 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On September 23, 2024, the court granted RE/MAX, LLC’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims with prejudice”
Mya Batton, Aaron Bolton, Michael Brace, Do Yeon Kim, Anna James, James Mullis, Theodore Bisbicos, and Daniel Parsons v. 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, L
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2021-01-25 · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 21-cv-00430
“Case No. 21-cv-00430, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, filed on January 25, 2021. On January 25, 2021, a similar action to the Moehrl-related antitrust litigations was filed in the Northern District of Illinois (the “Batton Action”) alleging violations of federal antitrust law and unjust enrichment.”Page 23 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On November 22, 2024, the court denied RE/MAX, LLC’s motion to dismiss”
Jennifer Nosalek, Randy Hirschorn, and Tracey Hirschorn v. MLS Property Information Network, Inc., Realogy Holdings Corp., Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (f/k/a Realogy Holdings Corp.), Century 21 Real Estate LLC, Coldwell Banker Real Estate LLC, Sotheby’s International Realty Affiliates LLC, Better Home
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2020-12-17 · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 20-cv-12244-PBS
“Jennifer Nosalek, Randy Hirschorn, and Tracey Hirschorn v. MLS Property Information Network, Inc., Realogy Holdings Corp., Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (f/k/a Realogy Holdings Corp.), Century 21 Real Estate LLC, Coldwell Banker Real Estate LLC”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The terms of RE/MAX, LLC’s Settlement Agreement extend to plaintiffs in the Nosalek Action.” (page 22)
Christopher Moehrl, Michael Cole, Steve Darnell, Jack Ramey, Daniel Umpa, and Jane Ruh v. 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,
pendingThird-party plaintiff · filed 2019-03-06 · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 19-cv-01610
“Christopher Moehrl, Michael Cole, Steve Darnell, Jack Ramey, Daniel Umpa, and Jane Ruh v. 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., Case No. 19-cv-01610”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On September 15, 2023, RE/MAX, LLC entered into a Settlement Term Sheet (the “Settlement”) to resolve the Burnett Action and Moehrl Action.” (page 20)
Scott and Rhonda Burnett, Ryan Hendrickson, Jerod Breit, Scott Trupiano, and Jeremy Keel v. The National Association of Realtors, 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 2019-04-29 · United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri · 19-cv-00332-SRB
“Scott and Rhonda Burnett, Ryan Hendrickson, Jerod Breit, Scott Trupiano, and Jeremy Keel v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX, LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-00332-SRB”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“By the terms of the proposed Settlement, RE/MAX, LLC agreed to make certain changes to its business practices and to pay a total settlement amount of $55 million” (page 20)
Salvatore Calabrese, Michael Calabrese, and Related Assets LLC d/b/a RE/MAX Metro, Plaintiffs, v. RE/MAX, LLC d/b/a RE/MAX New York Region (f/k/a RE/MAX International, Inc.), RE/MAX of New York Inc. (n/k/a RMY Holdings Inc.), ABC Corp. Nos. 1-10, Brook Staten Realty LLC, Staten Brook Realty LLC, XYZ
pendingBrought by a franchisee · filed 2018-04-10 · Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings · Index No. 507254/2018
“pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, filed on April 10, 2018. On April 10, 2018, former RE/MAX franchise owners Salvatore Calabrese and Michael Calabrese and former franchisee Related Assets LLC d/b/a RE/MAX Metro filed suit against RE/MAX, LLC RE/MAX of New York, Inc. and others relating to the refusal to renew/termination of their three franchise agreements.”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On February 11, 2019, Plaintiffs amended their complaint and dismissed RE/MAX of New York, Inc.”
Monty March v. Real Estate Board of New York; Real Estate Board Of New York Listing Service; Brown Harris Stevens, LLC; Christie’s International Real Estate LLC; Coldwell Banker LLC; Compass, Inc.; Core Marketing Services LLC; The Corcoran Group, Inc.; Douglas Elliman, Inc.; Elegran Real Estate, D/B
pendingThird-party plaintiff · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 23-cv-09995
“RE/MAX, LLC; Serhant LLC; Sloane Square LLC; and Sotheby’s International Realty Affiliates LLC, Case No. 23-cv-09995, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“In the Grace Action, the March Action, and the Willsim Action, the courts ordered a stay of the matters pending resolution of appeals of the Settlement Agreement.” (page 23)
Concluded (1)
Dalton Jensen v. The National Association of Realtors, Anywhere Real Estate Inc., HomeServices of America, Inc., HSF Affiliates, LLC, BHH Affiliates, LC, RE/MAX, LLC, Keller Williams LLC, Keller Williams of Salt Lake, KW St. George Keller Williams Realty, KW Westfield, Equity Real Estate, Century 21
dismissedThird-party plaintiff · filed 2024-02-09 · U.S. District Court for the District of Utah · 24-cv-00109
“Dalton Jensen v. The National Association of Realtors, Anywhere Real Estate Inc., HomeServices of America, Inc., HSF Affiliates, LLC, BHH Affiliates, LC, RE/MAX, LLC, Keller Williams LLC, Keller Williams of Salt Lake, KW St. George Keller Williams Realty, KW Westfield, Equity Real Estate, Century 21 Everest, Realtypath, LLC, Windemere Real Estate SVCS. Co., Case No. 24-cv- 00109”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“In the Jensen Action, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on May 23, 2024, which the court granted the same day.” (page 23)
Status not stated in the filing (1)
RE/MAX, LLC v. Solade Group, Inc., Alexander Martin, Davin Bell, Keith Wilson, and DOES 1 to 10, Inclusive
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2024-01-09 · Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Central Justice Center-Civil Division · 30-2024-01371952-CU-CL-CJC
“RE/MAX, LLC v. Solade Group, Inc., Alexander Martin, Davin Bell, Keith Wilson, and DOES 1 to 10, Inclusive, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Central Justice Center-Civil Division, Case No.: 30-2024-01371952-CU-CL-CJC, filed on January 9, 2024.”Page 24 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Parent, affiliates and predecessor
Pending (2)
Willsim Latham, LLC v. MetroList Services, Inc., Sacramento Association of Realtors, Inc., Placer County Association of Realtors, Inc., El Dorado County Association of Realtors, Lodi Association of Realtors, Yolo County Association of Realtors, Central Valley Association of Realtors, Amador County A
pendingThird-party plaintiff · RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. · filed 2024-01-18 · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California · 24-at-00067
“Sutter-Yuba Association of Realtors, RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., Anywhere Real Estate Inc., Keller Williams Realty, Inc., eXp World Holdings, Inc., Norcal Gold Inc., Century 21 Select Real Estate, Inc., William L. Lyon & Associates, Inc. Paul M. Zagaris, Inc., Guide Real Estate, Inc., Case No. 24-at-00067, filed on January 18, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“In the Grace Action, the March Action, and the Willsim Action, the courts ordered a stay of the matters pending resolution of appeals of the Settlement Agreement.” (page 23)
Christina Grace v. National Association of Realtors, RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., Anywhere Real Estate Inc., Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Compass, Inc., eXp World Holdings, Inc., Bay Area Real Estate Information Services, Inc., Marin Association of Realtors, North Bay Association of Realtors, Northern So
pendingThird-party plaintiff · RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. · filed 2023-12-08 · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · 23-cv-06352
“Christina Grace v. National Association of Realtors, RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., Anywhere Real Estate Inc., Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Compass, Inc., eXp World Holdings, Inc., Bay Area Real Estate Information Services, Inc., Marin Association of Realtors”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“In the Grace Action, the March Action, and the Willsim Action, the courts ordered a stay of the matters pending resolution of appeals of the Settlement Agreement.” (page 23)
This list shows 15 of the 18 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 16.0% 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 |
| Territory type | No territory protection |
| Protected territory | No |
| Exclusive territoryℹ | No |
| Territory population | 100,000 |
| Online sales rightsℹ | Granted |
| Franchisor can compete | Yes |
| Hire a manager? | Allowed |
| Owner-operator | Optional |
| Non-compete (years)ℹ | 1 year |
| Right of first refusalℹ | No |
| RoFR response window | 30 days |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Termination notice | 30 days |
| Termination groundsℹ | 1 |
| Curable defaultsℹ | 2 |
| Mandatory arbitration | No |
| Arbitration location | Denver, Colorado |
| Jury trial waiver | Yes |
| Governing law | Colorado |
| Litigation count | 18 |
Items 10, 11
Training & Operations
- Classroom training
- 50 hrs
- On-the-job training
- 0 hrs
- Training location
- On-site and corporate
- Ongoing training
- Required
- Time to open
- 2 mo
- From signing to launch
- Site selection
- joint
- Franchisor financing
- Offered
- Item 10
Items 5 & 11
Franchisor Support
Item 20 · call current owners
Franchisee Contacts
392 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 RE/MAX franchise?
The total investment to open a RE/MAX franchise ranges from $45K – $266K, with an initial franchise fee of $18K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).
What do RE/MAX franchise owners earn?
RE/MAX 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 RE/MAX?
RE/MAX is franchised by RE/MAX, LLC. Its parent company is RMCO, LLC. The ultimate parent named in the FDD is RE/MAX Holdings, Inc.. Source: FDD Item 1, 2025 filing.
What is Item 19 in the RE/MAX 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 RE/MAX FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is RE/MAX's franchise failure rate?
Based on SBA 7(a) loan data, RE/MAX has a charge-off rate of 14.2% across 306 loans, meaning 14.2% 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 RE/MAX franchise locations are there?
As of their most recent FDD filing, RE/MAX has 3,150 total units in the United States, including 3,150 franchised units and 0 company-owned units. 125 new units were opened in the latest reporting year.
Is RE/MAX a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict rates RE/MAX as a B-grade franchise with a verdict score of 55 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 RE/MAX, 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.