A&W Restaurants vs Fala Bar
Compare FDD disclosures, investment range, royalty and ad fund burden, SBA lending outcomes, Item 20-style unit movement, Item 19 transparency, and data-confidence caveats with a permanent shareable URL.
Share this page
https://fddiq.com/compare/a-w-restaurants-vs-fala-bar
A&W Restaurants
Casual Dining
Investment
$470K to $2.2M
Franchise fee
$35,000
Item 19 status
Revenue Only
Confidence
High Confidence
Units
143
Fala Bar
Casual Dining
Investment
$123K to $271K
Franchise fee
$20,000
Item 19 status
Limited Data
Confidence
Medium Confidence
Units
4
Lower entry cost
Leans right
Based on disclosed minimum initial investment only; buyer cash needs may be higher after working capital, lease, and financing assumptions.
Better disclosed economics
A&W Restaurants
Uses the same Item 19 transparency hierarchy shown on franchise pages and rankings.
Lower SBA default risk
Even
Treat low-loan brands carefully; sample size and SBA borrower mix matter.
| Metric | A&W Restaurants | Fala Bar |
|---|---|---|
Franchise Fee From disclosed FDD fee data when available; excludes buyer-specific legal, diligence, and financing costs. | $35,000 | $20,000 |
Min Investment Lower bound of disclosed initial investment range, not a recommended capital budget. | $470K | $123K |
Max Investment Upper end of FDD range; still reconcile to site, lease, buildout, and working-capital assumptions. | $2.2M | $271K |
Royalty Rate Ongoing royalty burden before local store economics and owner salary. | 5.0% | 3.0% |
Ad Fund Rate National/brand fund rate when disclosed; local marketing may be additive. | 4.5% | 1.0% |
Total Ongoing Burden Royalty plus ad fund when available. | 9.5% | 4.0% |
Median Revenue (Item 19) Only meaningful when the franchisor provides an Item 19 financial-performance representation. | $961K | N/A |
Cash-on-Cash Return Estimated when revenue and margin assumptions are available. | 0.4% | N/A |
Payback Period | 273.6 yrs | N/A |
Revenue per Dollar Invested | 0.73x | N/A |
Franchised Units Latest disclosed franchised-unit count in the corpus. | 143 | 4 |
1-Year Net Unit Change Item 20-style system movement signal; investigate transfers, closures, and refranchising before assuming organic growth. | N/A | N/A |
Net Unit Growth Rate | N/A | N/A |
Net Closure Rate Net closure proxy based on disclosed unit change. | N/A | N/A |
SBA Default Rate Historical SBA performance for matched loans, not a prediction for a new buyer or location. | 0.0% | 0.0% |
SBA Loan Count Use this to judge whether SBA default data is statistically meaningful. | 2 | 1 |
Average SBA Loan Size | $223K | $272K |
Item 19 Status Canonical transparency badge used across franchise, ranking, and compare surfaces. | Revenue Only | Limited Data |
Has Item 19 | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
Data Confidence Derived from the same data-quality thresholds used on franchise pages. | High Confidence · 100/100 | Medium Confidence · 75/100 |
What stands out
- • A&W Restaurants discloses an initial investment range of $470K to $2.2M, while Fala Bar discloses $123K to $271K. Treat these as FDD ranges, not a full purchase budget.
- • A&W Restaurants shows an Item 19 financial-performance disclosure; Fala Bar shows an Item 19 financial-performance disclosure. Missing Item 19 data should narrow confidence, not automatically kill a brand.
- • A&W Restaurants has 143 franchised units versus 4 for Fala Bar; use one-year net unit movement and closure proxies as early diligence signals, not final underwriting.
Turn this into a buy-side memo
Unlock full compare access, then order a deeper FDD report with franchise-agreement red flags, source-document caveats, buyer assumptions, and an investment thesis you can share with partners or lenders.
Related comparisons
Keep comparing similar brands in the same buyer set, then validate the shortlist against source documents and local deal assumptions.
Last updated: May 2026