Compare
2 brands side-by-side
Compare up to 4 brands side by side
indicates the clear winner per row. Ties and missing data are not highlighted.
How winners are chosen
Lower is better for investment, liquid capital, franchise fee, royalty and ad-fund rates, SBA charge-off rate, and owner turnover.
Higher is better for disclosed revenue and owner earnings, verdict score, total units, net unit growth, and franchisee contacts. For the letter grade, A ranks highest.
A row is highlighted only when one brand clearly leads. Ties are never highlighted, and missing data never counts as a win. Some rows (earnings-metric type, loan counts, contract terms) are informational and have no winner.
Focus by buyer type
| Brand |  AStrongest tierKilwins Quick-Service Restaurants Remove |  FWeakest tierNap Tea Quick-Service Restaurants Remove |
|---|---|---|
| Vitals | ||
Investment range | $513K – $880K | $624K – $777K |
Liquid capital | $8K – $75K | $30K – $60K |
Franchise fee | $40K | $300K |
Royalty rate | 5.0% | 4.0% |
Ad fund rate | 3.0% | N/A |
| Performance | ||
Avg gross sales | $933K | N/A |
Median gross sales | $802K | N/A |
Avg owner earnings Metric varies by brand. Check type below | N/A | N/A |
Earnings metric | Not classified | Not classified |
| Risk | ||
Rating | AStrongest tier | FWeakest tier |
Verdict score | 75 / 100 | 26 / 100 |
SBA charge-off rate | 3.6% | N/A |
SBA loans on record | 120 | N/A |
| Scale | ||
Total units | 172 | 0 |
Net change (latest yr) | N/A | N/A |
Turnover rate | 3.0% | N/A |
| Contract | ||
Initial term (years) | 10 | 5 |
Renewal term (years) | 10 | 5 |
Initial training (hrs) | 200 | 80 |
| Contacts | ||
Franchisee phones | 21 | 2 |
Looking for a detailed head-to-head breakdown?
Read the Kilwins vs Nap Tea editorial comparison →Need franchisee contacts for these brands?
Save with a contact bundle →