Anago vs 76 Fence

Anago is the stronger play right now, and it wins decisively on TAM. With 44 franchised units against Brand A’s single one, the addressable install base is 44x larger before you even account for AUV differences. For a vendor selling POS, scheduling, or back-office tools, volume matters more than per-unit revenue—you need doors to sell into, not just one high-grossing outlier. Brand A’s $1.54M AUV looks attractive on paper, but it’s a vanity metric when the total universe is two locations. You can’t build a pipeline on two accounts.

Timing and terrain tilt further toward Anago. The approved-supplier procurement model means franchisees retain purchasing autonomy; you don’t have to win a franchisor mandate first—you can land-and-expand unit by unit, which is the faster path to revenue in a fragmented home-services network. The -2.2% unit decline is a yellow flag, but it’s manageable: a 45-unit system still gives you a 40+ account target list, and churn creates replacement openings. The higher franchise fee ($98K vs. $60K) and slightly wider investment band signal franchisees with more upfront capital and a bias toward running a professional operation, which correlates with willingness to pay for software that drives efficiency.

The tradeoff you accept is margin friction from Anago’s 2.2% ad fund, which leaves less operating budget on the table than Brand A’s 1%. That’s real, but it’s a second-order problem next to market size. Brand A’s franchisor-controlled procurement could, in theory, deliver a single-deal sweep, but with one franchised unit, that sweep nets you one logo. Don’t over-engineer this: sell where the buyers are.

Verdict: Anago’s 44-unit TAM and decentralized procurement terrain make it the superior software-sales target, full stop.