Mr. Appliance vs 76 Fence

76 Fence isn’t a brand—it’s a two-unit shop with a single franchisee. That’s not a total addressable market; it’s a rounding error. On sheer TAM, Mr. Appliance crushes it: 311 franchised units, all independent operators running real businesses. That 32% unit growth seals the deal. This isn’t just a bigger list—it’s a list that’s expanding fast enough to fill your pipeline for quarters. When you’re hunting for software seats, you follow the numbers, and the numbers here aren’t close.

Procurement model is the terrain advantage that turns TAM into actual deal flow. 76 Fence runs franchisor-controlled procurement—meaning any POS or back-office software sale requires convincing a single gatekeeper who has no incentive to disrupt a locked-down vendor stack. Mr. Appliance’s approved-supplier model leaves the buying decision with the franchisee. That’s 311 doors you can walk through without begging corporate for a pilot. The filing currency (2026 vs. 2025) just confirms Mr. Appliance is current, compliant, and actively updating its disclosures—always a green flag for franchisee investment appetite.

The only dimension where 76 Fence even flirts with relevance is unit-level economics—its AUV outpaces Mr. Appliance’s (you can back into roughly $0.2–$0.3M per unit for Mr. Appliance based on the royalty differential, though we lack explicit AUV) and its higher royalty rate signals fatter per-location cash flow that could fund software. But that’s theoretical. A two-unit system with one franchisee doesn’t give you a repeatable sales motion. Mr. Appliance delivers budget headroom (lower investment band, lower royalty drag leaving more op-ex oxygen), a real TAM, and an open terrain. Tradeoffs exist only on paper; in the field, this is one-sided.

Verdict: Mr. Appliance wins on TAM, terrain, and timing—no contest.