All Nevada Insurance vs Clearview Franchising

All Nevada Insurance is the stronger target right now, and the reason is pure TAM. With 14 franchised units versus Clearview’s 8, you’re looking at nearly double the installed base to sell into immediately. That unit count isn’t just a vanity metric—it’s your addressable pipeline. The 7.7% unit growth YoY also signals a system that’s expanding, not stalling, which means net-new locations will need POS, scheduling, and back-office tools soon. The lower 10% royalty is a quiet budget tailwind: franchisees keep more margin, making a software investment easier to stomach without the franchisor squeezing every point.

The tradeoff is timing and data freshness. Clearview’s 2025 FDD is current, meaning their disclosed tech stack, vendor relationships, and unit economics are reliable right now. All Nevada’s filing is overdue—2023 data could be masking churn, a tech mandate shift, or a centralized procurement change that locks you out. That’s a real risk. But in financial services franchising, where locations are lean (low investment range, small staff), the sheer unit count and growth trajectory outweigh the stale filing. You can validate the current state with a few discovery calls; you can’t magically add 6 more franchisees to Clearview’s system.

Terrain also tilts toward All Nevada. Both brands use an approved-supplier model, so you’re not blocked by a forced corporate stack, but All Nevada’s higher franchisee count gives you more shots at a ground-up adoption motion. If even a third of those 14 owners buy in, you’ve got a beachhead. Clearview’s higher royalty (20%) and ad fund (2%) squeeze operator cash flow, making any software line item a harder sell, despite the lower initial franchise fee. Budget, TAM, and growth all point one direction.

Verdict: All Nevada Insurance wins on TAM and franchisee budget flexibility, and the overdue FDD is an acceptable risk you can diligence away.