Mobility Plus vs 76 Fence

Mobility Plus offers the decisive advantage in total addressable market, with 53 franchised units versus 76 Fence’s single franchised location. That 53:1 gap isn’t just scale—it’s the difference between a software vendor building a beachhead versus chasing a one-off deal. Even with zero year-over-year unit growth, Mobility Plus gives you 53 potential logos under a franchisor-controlled procurement model; if you win the parent, you win the network. TAM wins here, and it isn’t close.

The meaningful tradeoff is budget depth. 76 Fence’s AUV of $1.54 million signals a high-transaction, cash-rich operation that could justify premium per-seat or per-location software spend—possibly outspending a typical Mobility Plus unit. But that whale is exactly one franchisee. Without Mobility Plus AUV data, we can’t compare per-unit revenue, yet even if 76 Fence units are 2x richer, a software vendor caps out at a maximum of two accounts, one of which is corporate-owned and may not buy independently. The total contract value ceiling is therefore tiny, no matter the per-unit budget.

Terrain and timing are washes: both brands run franchisor-controlled procurement with current FDDs, and neither is growing. So the call comes down to TAM vs. budget, and TAM wins when it’s an order of magnitude larger. A single-account strategy doesn’t build a vertical SaaS business.

Verdict: Mobility Plus is the stronger software-sales opportunity right now—volume of franchised units crushes any per-location budget advantage 76 Fence might carry.