ATL International vs AlSet Auto

ATL International puts a larger, more homogeneous set of targets within reach right now. Eighteen fully franchised units versus AlSet Auto’s ten means our addressable base is nearly double, and every operator is a direct buyer without the split incentives of a mixed corporate-owned system. Lower investment caps (~$142K vs. ~$179K) and a leaner 7% royalty preserve more operator budget for technology, while the smaller $29K initial franchise fee accelerates break-even and shortens the cash-to-purchase cycle. TAM and budget tilt clearly toward ATL.

AlSet Auto isn’t nothing—it wins on terrain. The approved-supplier procurement model makes it far easier to embed our POS and back-office stack as a mandated or heavily preferred path, creating a top-down sales wedge. The current-year (2025) FDD signals a leadership team that values operational freshness, and a higher royalty suggests they’re funding meaningful support infrastructure that could amplify a vendor relationship. But these terrain advantages are undercut by a shrinking system; -16.7% year-over-year unit contraction signals real franchisee distress, which kills expansion-driven seat growth and raises churn risk.

Timing makes this decision. ATL’s OVERDUE filing is a glaring execution gap we can exploit with compliance-centric outreach, while its standards-based procurement leaves room for a software vendor to become the de facto standard, not just an approved option. AlSet’s operational polish matters less when the franchise base is contracting. Scale, budget headroom, and the immediate opening created by ATL’s administrative debt make it the sharper play.

Verdict: ATL International is the stronger opportunity today—bigger TAM, healthier unit economics, and a neglect signal we can turn into a wedge.