Central Cycling vs 9Round

9Round is the stronger opportunity on TAM and timing. With 141 franchised units and a current FDD, you’re looking at a real, addressable base that’s actively operating—not a single corporate-owned proof-of-concept. The investment range tops out near $390K, which signals operators have enough budget headroom to absorb a multi-module software stack (POS, scheduling, back-office) without it being a line-item crisis. The 6% royalty and 2% ad fund also leave more operating margin on the table than Central Cycling’s 7% royalty, making the ROI conversation easier when you’re pitching efficiency gains. The -29% unit growth is a red flag, but it’s a trailing number on a base of 142; you’re selling into the installed base, not betting on new openings.

Central Cycling’s single-unit, zero-franchised reality makes it a terrain play at best—and a premature one. The $388K AUV is a solid proof point for unit economics, but without franchisees writing checks, there’s no multi-location buyer urgency and no repeatable deployment template. The DUE FDD filing only compounds the timing risk: you can’t sell confidently into a system that hasn’t locked its current disclosure, and the 2025 fiscal year means you’re already looking at stale data. The lower investment ceiling ($323K) also squeezes the budget dimension relative to 9Round, leaving less room for a premium software pitch.

The tradeoff is growth trajectory versus installed-base reality. Central Cycling might be a better brand in three years if it franchises aggressively, but right now it’s a consulting project, not a sales territory. 9Round gives you immediate pipeline, a known procurement model (approved supplier), and enough unit count to build a repeatable playbook—even if the brand is contracting. In franchise software sales, cash-flowing operators beat future promise every time.

Verdict: 9Round wins on TAM, budget headroom, and sales readiness; Central Cycling is a wait-and-see story with no franchisee buyers yet.