Carre d'artistes vs Aaron's and Aaron's Sales & Lease Ownership

Aaron’s is the stronger play right now, and it’s not close. Total addressable market is the deciding dimension. With 1,162 units open—224 of them franchised—you’re looking at a substantial installed base that can generate license volume immediately, plus a franchised segment still small enough to grow into. Zero unit growth year-over-year is a flag, but it signals a mature network that needs operational efficiency and modernized back-office tooling—exactly what a vendor sells. The procurement model is approved supplier, not locked down, so you’re not gatekept out of discovery and evaluation cycles. Budget is lower per location ($307K–$838K investment range), but that’s offset by scale: sell into the corporate core first, then cascade to franchisees under a proven reference story.

The meaningful tradeoff is terrain. Carre d’artistes operates with franchisor-controlled procurement and a higher per-unit buildout ($1M–$2.5M), which typically means deeper pockets and a more centralized buying decision. That sounds efficient until you realize it’s a closed system where the franchisor bundles or mandates tech, making external software sales an uphill battle unless you unseat an incumbent by fiat. Aaron’s open approved-supplier model gives you maneuvering room to compete on capability, not relationships. Timing also favors Aaron’s: a 2026 FDD signals an updated, active franchise system still refining its tech stack, versus Carre d’artistes’ 2025 filing, which suggests a longer procurement cycle already in motion.

The scale and procurement openness at Aaron’s override the higher per-unit budget at Carre d’artistes. Go where the doors are already open and the tech mandate isn’t locked inside the franchisor’s four walls.

Verdict: Aaron’s wins on TAM and procurement terrain.