HOODZ vs 76 Fence

For a software vendor selling POS, marketing automation, scheduling, or back-office tools, the numbers point to HOODZ as the stronger near-term opportunity, and it comes down to terrain and TAM. 76 Fence posts a meaningfully higher AUV ($1.54M vs. $1.26M), which suggests deeper per-unit pockets, but with only a single franchised unit live and one more total, you’re looking at a deal size capped at two logos. That’s a hobby, not a pipeline. HOODZ gives you 135 franchised units and YoY unit growth of 3%, which translates to a real, addressable base that can absorb a multi-seat rollout today and expand over the next two FDD cycles. The royalty differential (10% vs. 8%) also signals a franchisor that’s pulling healthy recurring revenue and likely to enforce operational consistency—exactly the kind of parent that mandates tech stacks.

The procurement model seals it. 76 Fence operates under a franchisor-controlled model, which in practice often means the parent locks down the tech vendor list or funnels units onto its own cobbled-together system, leaving a third-party ISV with zero wedge. HOODZ runs an approved-supplier model, meaning you can sell through to franchisees directly once you win corporate’s blessing—or even work the field first and let demand pull you onto the list. Yes, 76 Fence’s higher AUV means each won unit would write a bigger check, but that’s irrelevant when the TAM is two. Timing also favors HOODZ: a current 2026 FDD filing means their disclosure is fresh, their franchise sales engine is active, and there’s no regulatory limbo that freezes technology purchasing decisions.

Verdict: HOODZ is the only choice that offers a real, scalable TAM with an open procurement path, and 76 Fence remains a theoretical two-deal curiosity until it proves it can franchise.