Surf City Squeeze Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026
Data from FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records
Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology
Surf City Squeeze is a smoothie and juice bar franchise serving blended fruit smoothies and supplements. Franchisees run kiosks or inline retail units, managing prep, perishable inventory, and quick counter service.
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026
A Surf City Squeeze franchise requires a total initial investment of $105K – $390K, including a $30K franchise fee and an ongoing 6.0% royalty[2]. The 2025 FDD does not disclose unit-level revenue (no Item 19). SBA 7(a) loans show a 12.0% charge-off rate across 29 loans[1]. FranchiseVerdict grade: D (Below average), an editorial assessment, not investment advice. Run a live ROI scan →
Data last verified · figures per the 2025 FDD issuance
Overview
- Investment
- $105K – $390K
- 6th pct Service Resta…
- Avg gross sales
- N/A
- Royalty
- 6.0%
- 46th pct Service Resta…
- Units
- 63
- 70th pct Service Resta…
- SBA charge-off
- 12.0%
- % of SBA 7(a) loans not repaid · median varies by category
Quick verdict · Quick-Service Restaurants · color = vs category peers
Green = favorable by >10% vs Quick-Service Restaurants avg · 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 $105K – $390K including a $30K franchise fee, 6.0% ongoing royalty.
- RETURNSNo Item 19 financial performance data disclosed. The franchisor chose not to publish revenue figures.
- RISKVerdict D (Below average), verdict score 36/100 (higher is better). SBA loan charge-off rate of 12.0% across 29 loans (above the 16% franchise average, based on all SBA 7(a) franchise lending, 2010–2025).
- LEGAL15 litigation matters disclosed in Item 3, higher than typical. Review the summary for patterns (franchisor-initiated vs. franchisee-initiated).
Item 1 · who you're contracting with
The Franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- Kahala Franchising, L.L.C.
- Parent company
- Kahala Brands, Inc.
- Ultimate parent
- MTY Food Group, Inc.
- Predecessor
- Kahala Franchise Corp. (also Malibu Smoothie Franchise Corp. and Surf City Squeeze Franchise Corp.)
- Prior franchisor entity
- CEO title
- Chief Executive Officer of MTY
- Eric Lefebvre
- CEO experience
- 2018 yrs
- Years in role or industry
- Incorporated in
- Arizona
- HQ
- 9311 E. Via De Ventura, Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
- Auditor
- PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
- Audited financials
- Franchisor revenue
- $606.6M
- vs $597.5M prior year
- Management churn noted
- Frequent turnover
- Item 2 disclosed frequent executive changes
Overview
About
- CEO
- Eric Lefebvre
- Headquarters
- AZ
- FDD year
- 2025
- States available
- 15
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost runs 62% below the typical quick-service restaurants franchise.
Source: FDD 2025 · Items 5–7
FDD Item 7 · 2025 filing
Initial investment breakdown
| Cost component | Low | High |
|---|---|---|
| Initial franchise fee | $30K | $30K |
| Working capital (3–6 mo) | $5K | $15K |
| Equipment, build-out, other | $70K | $345K |
| Total initial investment | $105K | $390K |
Source: Surf City Squeeze 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
- $105K – $390K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Liquid capital req'd
- $5K – $15K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Franchise fee
- $30K – $30K
- Top 40% of category vs category
- Royalty
- 6.0%
- Gross Sales · typical 6–8%
- Ad fund
- 1.0%
- typical 3–5%
- Total fee load
- 7.0%
- vs 9–13% typical
Ongoing fees · Item 6
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 6.0% of gross sales |
| Marketing / ad fund | 1.0% of gross sales |
| Technology fee | $75 |
| Training fee | $1K |
| Transfer fee | $8K |
| Renewal fee | $15K |
| Total fee load | 7.0% of rev |
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
Surf City Squeeze did not disclose financial performance in FDD Item 19. The ROIC and return models require Item 19 revenue. Without it all inputs are estimates. You can still run the calculator with your own assumptions by entering an expected revenue figure.
Returns model · single-unit ROIC
What would one Surf City Squeeze unit return on the cash you put in?
Unlevered ROIC · per unit
Estimated return on your total franchise investment, before any debt financing.
44%
Within the 30–60% "attractive franchise" band
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
This franchisor did not disclose financial performance representations in Item 19, or our extractor could not parse them.
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 7.0% (near the Quick-Service Restaurants average).
Disclosure
Franchisor chose not to disclose financial performance representations. You will need to gather unit economics directly from existing franchisees.
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 averages
How Surf City Squeeze Compares
Is the system healthy?
Source: FDD 2025 · Item 20
Unit growth
Item 20 · unit dynamics
The Growth Chart
- Total units
- 63
- Opened
- 2
- Last reporting year
- Closed
- 2
- Terminated
- 0
- Franchisor ended the franchise (per Item 20)
- Non-renewed
- 2
- Term expired, not renewed (per Item 20)
- Turnover rate
- 9.7%
- Company-owned
- 1
- Corporate units in the system
- % franchised
- 98%
- vs corporate-owned
3-year detail · Item 20
- Opened (3yr)
- 27
- Closed (3yr)
- 5
- Terminated (3yr)
- 0
- Non-renewed (3yr)
- 1
- Transfers (3yr)
- 2
- Reacquired (3yr)
- 0
- Franchisor bought back
- Projected new
- 1
- Franchisor's next-year forecast
- Transfer rate
- 6.4%
- Owners selling to other franchisees
- Termination rate
- 6.4%
- Franchisor-initiated terminations
- Ceased ops
- 3.2%
- Units that stopped operating
Last reporting year only, multi-year history not disclosed in this brand's FDD.
Item 20 · 8 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.
SBA loan performance
Government records
SBA Loan Data
Aggregated from SBA 7(a) and 504 loan disclosures, public data unique to FranchiseVerdict.
- Total loans
- 29
- Loan volume
- $3.1M
- Median loan
- $100K
- 50th percentile
- Charge-off rate
- 12.0%
- 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)
- 88.0%
- 5-yr charge-off
- N/A
- Loans approved 2021+
- Active lenders
- 11
- Defaults
- 3
- Typical loan rate
- 6.8%
- avg rate to borrowers
- Franchised industry avg
- 31.2%
- brand beats franchise avg ↓
- Jobs supported
- 106
- 4.2 per loan
- Lender concentration
- 40%
- top lender's share
Franchise vs independent — in snack and nonalcoholic beverage bars, franchised businesses charge off at 31.2% vs 27.4% for independents — franchising is associated with 14% higher SBA default risk in this category.
Vintage analysis
Surf City Squeeze charge-off rate by loan vintage
Top lenders financing Surf City Squeeze 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.
Premium insight
SBA Lending Report
Deep-dive into Surf City Squeeze's SBA lending history: lender network, geographic footprint, interest rates, and more.
SBA Lending Report
- Principal loss rate and NAICS industry benchmark
- 10 lenders with concentration factor
- Per-state charge-off rates across 4 states
- Startup risk premium and job creation velocity
- 13-year lending trend
Instant access. No subscription.
What could kill this investment?
SBA loans charge off at 12.0% — 25% 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
Small 63-unit beverage franchisor (Kahala/MTY affiliate) with NO audited financials and no Item 19 disclosure. The 17 litigation matters span many affiliate brands plus several state consent orders. Lack of audited financials plus heavy litigation relative to size stack as multiple concerns.
Litigation (Item 3)
Two concluded cases: (1) Purav Enterprises, L.L.C., et al. v. The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, Inc., et al. (Washington Superior Court, King County, Case No. 15-2-15120-7) - Franchisees alleged FIPA violations, misrepresentation of financial performance, and unregistered broker claims. Settled March 11, 2016 for $20,000, dismissed March 16, 2016. (2) KOHO, Inc. v. Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. BC572565) - Area Representative sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment; Kahala cross-complained. Court granted judgment for Kahala; awarded $205,000 in attorney's fees. Parties settled June 19, 2017 with Kahala repurchasing territory for $75,000 and forgiving $130,000 in damages.
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None disclosed
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Franchisor revenue (Item 21)
Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)
ⓘ 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: Yes
- Restricted to system-approved products: Yes
- Can negotiate own supplier terms: No
Score breakdown · what drove the 36 / 100 verdict
- 01MINORhas_audited_financials=false
- 02MEDitem19_disclosed=false
- 03HIGH17 litigation matters (affiliate suits + state consent orders)
- 04MINORsmall 63-unit system
Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification
What are you signing up for?
Ongoing fees run about 7.0% 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 | 10 years |
|---|---|
| Renewal term | 5 years |
| Allowed renewalsℹ | 1 |
| Protected territory | No |
| Exclusive territoryℹ | No |
| Online sales rightsℹ | Restricted |
| 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 |
| Termination notice | 90 days |
| Mandatory arbitration | Yes |
| Arbitration location | county and state where the Franchised Business is located |
| Jury trial waiver | Yes |
| Governing law | Arizona |
| Litigation count | 15 |
View Item 3 litigation summary
Two concluded cases: (1) Purav Enterprises, L.L.C., et al. v. The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, Inc., et al. (Washington Superior Court, King County, Case No. 15-2-15120-7) - Franchisees alleged FIPA violations, misrepresentation of financial performance, and unregistered broker claims. Settled March 11, 2016 for $20,000, dismissed March 16, 2016. (2) KOHO, Inc. v. Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. BC572565) - Area Representative sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment; Kahala cross-complained. Court granted judgment for Kahala; awarded $205,000 in attorney's fees. Parties settled June 19, 2017 with Kahala repurchasing territory for $75,000 and forgiving $130,000 in damages.
Items 10, 11
Training & Operations
- Classroom training
- 40 hrs
- On-the-job training
- 40 hrs
- Training location
- On-site and at franchisor location
- Time to open
- 9 mo
- From signing to launch
- POS system
- FOCUS POS System
- Operating tech stack
Items 5 & 11
Franchisor Support
Technology: FOCUS POS System
Item 20 · call current owners
Franchisee Contacts
23 owners to call
Name · phone · city · state. Extracted from FDD Item 20
FDD download
Surf City Squeeze · FDD (2025) PDF
Frequently asked questions
Frequently Asked Questions
How much does it cost to open a Surf City Squeeze franchise?
The total investment to open a Surf City Squeeze franchise ranges from $105K – $390K, with an initial franchise fee of $30K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).
What do Surf City Squeeze franchise owners earn?
Surf City Squeeze does not disclose average franchise owner earnings in their FDD Item 19. Not all franchisors are required to make financial performance representations. We recommend asking existing franchisees directly about their financial experience.
What is Item 19 in the Surf City Squeeze 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 Surf City Squeeze FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is Surf City Squeeze's franchise failure rate?
Based on SBA 7(a) loan data, Surf City Squeeze has a charge-off rate of 12.0% across 29 loans, meaning 12.0% 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 Surf City Squeeze franchise locations are there?
As of their most recent FDD filing, Surf City Squeeze has 63 total units in the United States, including 62 franchised units and 1 company-owned units. 2 new units were opened in the latest reporting year.
Is Surf City Squeeze a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict rates Surf City Squeeze as a D-grade franchise with a verdict score of 36 out of 100 (higher is better), based on our analysis of investment costs, revenue data, SBA loan performance, and growth trends. 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 Surf City Squeeze, 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.