THE FILTA GROUP INC.Filta vs 76 Fence

Filta is the stronger opportunity right now, and it’s not close. The dimension that wins is TAM — 379 total units versus 2, with 377 franchised locations already operating. That’s a real, addressable base of potential software buyers today. 76 Fence’s higher AUV ($1.54M vs. $1.04M) suggests better per-unit budget, but budget without scale is a consulting gig, not a scalable SaaS play. You can’t build a pipeline on two accounts, no matter how rich they are.

The terrain also tilts hard toward Filta. Its approved_supplier procurement model means franchisees have autonomy to choose their own tech stack. You sell the franchisee directly, and you don’t need to first win a corporate mandate. 76 Fence’s franchisor-controlled procurement locks you into a single, slow enterprise sale where the franchisor likely already has incumbent vendors baked into that $315K investment package. The royalty rate difference (15% vs. 8%) is a secondary signal: Filta franchisees are already accustomed to higher operating costs, making a well-priced software line item easier to absorb.

The meaningful tradeoff is budget depth vs. deal volume. 76 Fence units have 47% more revenue, so a closed deal there is likely larger in ACV. But with only one franchised unit, you’re betting on a single relationship and future growth that hasn’t materialized. Filta’s CURRENT FDD filing and 377-unit base give you immediate territory to attack with a repeatable sales motion. Timing favors the brand that can generate pipeline now, not the one that might be interesting in three years.

Verdict: Target Filta — the TAM and open procurement model create a repeatable sales motion that 76 Fence’s higher AUV cannot offset.