Hole in the Wall vs 76 Fence

76 Fence posts a gaudy $1.54M AUV—30% richer than Hole in the Wall—which means franchisees have budget headroom for a full-stack POS, scheduling, and marketing automation suite. But budget alone is a trap when the total addressable market is microscopic. There are only 2 total units, 1 franchised. Even with fat per-seat revenue, you cannot build a sustainable franchise software business on two logos. That star AUV is wasted without unit count to scale against.

Hole in the Wall flips the script: 3 units (2 franchised) still isn’t massive, but it’s triple the franchised footprint of 76 Fence, and the momentum is fresher—their FDD is current, not past-due. Critically, the approved-supplier procurement model means the franchisor isn’t jamming a mandated tech stack down franchisees’ throats. You can sell individual owners directly, build champions, and potentially convert that into a preferred-vendor endorsement later. Lower AUV stings, but at $1.18M these are still well-funded home-service operators spending on operational efficiency. The 8% combined royalty and ad fund at 76 Fence means more cash going to the franchisor, less for software; Hole in the Wall’s slightly lighter franchisee burden leaves more wallet share on the table.

The tradeoff is raw per-unit budget versus meaningful gas in the growth engine. 76 Fence offers a fatter single deal, but Hole in the Wall delivers more at-bats, an open procurement landscape, and a franchisee base that keeps more of its revenue. In the home-services vertical, installed-base breadth and procurement accessibility beat average ticket size every time.

Verdict: Hole in the Wall is the stronger opening, regardless of AUV's eye candy, because you win on unit count, procurement terrain, and fiscal timing.