Crunch Fitness vs Planet Fitness
Both in Fitness
| Metric | Crunch Fitness | Planet Fitness |
|---|---|---|
| Investment (Low) Minimum estimated initial investment from the FDD, including franchise fee and build-out. Lower is better. | $928K | $1.5M |
| Investment (High) Maximum estimated initial investment. Lower is better for the buyer. | $3.7M | $5.2M |
| Franchise Fee One-time upfront fee paid to the franchisor. Lower is better. | $35K | $20K |
| Royalty Ongoing percentage of gross revenue paid to the franchisor, typically weekly or monthly. | 5% | 7% |
| Total Units Total franchised and company-owned locations. More units generally means a more proven system. | 423 | 2,568 |
| Growth Rate Net change in total units over the last year. Negative growth may signal franchisee closures. | 13% | 4.4% |
| Health Score Composite score (1-100) based on growth, fees, scale, and data quality. Higher is better. | 89 | 89 |
Green = better on that metric. Based on official FDD data.
HVLP's two paths — and why $620K in average revenue gap is actually an investment-to-return question
Crunch's average revenue of $2.51M vs Planet Fitness's $1.89M represents a $620K annual advantage — but Crunch requires $928K-$3.74M in investment vs Planet Fitness's $1.53M-$5.22M. The investment ranges overlap, which makes this less a capital question and more a revenue model question. Crunch's higher revenue comes from a broader membership tier structure (Crunch Fitness, Crunch Select, Crunch Signature at different price points) that allows market-responsive pricing. Planet Fitness's $10/$25 structure is the model — there's no premium tier to upsell.
Crunch's 13% unit growth rate vs Planet Fitness's 4.4% reflects where each brand sits in its lifecycle. Crunch is in active expansion mode, opening 55 locations per year across its three models. Planet Fitness is consolidating — their growth has slowed from 7-8% annually in the mid-2010s to 4.4% as prime markets saturate. The Crunch operator entering today is in the expansion phase with available territory; the Planet Fitness operator is filling in secondary markets where the brand has less established awareness.
Planet Fitness's royalty structure collects 7% of membership fee revenue — not gross revenue, just the EFT membership collections. This excludes personal training, tanning, and other ancillary revenue from the royalty base, effectively lowering the true royalty rate. Crunch charges 5% of monthly gross revenue — a lower stated rate but applied to a broader revenue base. The effective royalty burden at similar revenue levels is comparable, but Planet Fitness's royalty exclusions create a hidden advantage for operators who build strong ancillary revenue.
The 'judgment-free zone' moat matters more than it appears. Planet Fitness has operationalized a cultural position — no intimidation, no serious lifters, no lunk alarms — that creates a psychographic barrier to switching. Members who chose PF because they were intimidated by traditional gyms have a strong reason not to switch to Crunch, which serves a more fitness-forward demographic. That customer segmentation means these brands compete less directly than their format similarity suggests.
Crunch is the better investment for operators in growth markets who want higher revenue ceiling and more pricing flexibility; Planet Fitness wins for operators who want the most defensible fitness brand in America backed by a customer loyalty that's more behavioral than rational.
Not sure which to choose?
A franchise consultant can introduce you to franchisees from both brands, verify the Item 19 numbers on the ground, and help you avoid a territory that's already saturated. Their fee comes from the franchisor — your consultation costs nothing.