Blowfish Poke vs Papa Murphy's

The raw numbers put Papa Murphy’s so far ahead on addressable market that Blowfish Poke barely registers as a comparison. With 1,014 total units—965 of them franchised—versus Blowfish’s five corporate-owned locations, Papa Murphy’s gives you a real, distributed base to sell into today. Even though Papa Murphy’s posted negative unit growth last year, the installed base is deep enough that churn still leaves hundreds of active prospects, each operating on a unit-level investment between $450K and $693K. That higher investment threshold typically correlates with more operating complexity and a bigger budget for software that streamlines scheduling, marketing, and back-office workflows. Blowfish’s $1.7M AUV looks healthy, but a five-unit corporate chain has no independent franchisee buyers and no urgency to bolt on third-party systems they don’t already control in-house.

The tradeoff is timing and terrain. Papa Murphy’s is mature, shrinking slightly, and likely already locked into legacy vendor contracts across a large franchisee base. You’re not walking into a greenfield; you’re displacing incumbents or consolidating fragmented tools, which lengthens sales cycles and demands a higher-touch enterprise motion. Blowfish’s modest investment range and zero ad fund suggest franchisees—if they ever materialize—would run lean with little discretionary tech spend. Its approved-supplier procurement model is no advantage here because that lever only matters once a franchise system actually exists. The Papa Murphy’s FDD being a year fresher than Blowfish’s is a minor tiebreaker, signaling more current financials as you build your ROI models for franchisee prospects.

Verdict: Papa Murphy’s is the clear pick because its thousand-unit franchisee TAM offers an actual sellable base, and the tradeoff in sales-cycle friction is worth absorbing for the volume.