Our view is straightforward: the Franchise Consulting Index 2026 is useful as a snapshot of its respondents, but its headline reaches beyond what the method can support. A frame of 3,200 consultants produced 220 responses, and those respondents reported their own activity from memory. That can show concentration inside the sample. It cannot turn a voluntary survey into a census of franchise consultants.

1What the report claims

The cover line says, \u201cThe largest independent study of franchise consultants conducted to date.\u201d That is a strong claim, especially in a market where reliable counts are scarce. The report examines consultant activity in the United States and Canada and presents placement volume, lead generation spending and investment ranges.

The problem is not that the report gathered responses. The problem is the way the headline frames what those responses establish. A study can be large compared with other studies and still fall short of representing the field. Here, the report contacted 3,200 consultants and received 220 responses. The response rate was 7%.

The publisher does disclose its commercial connection. The report says, \u201cThe Franchise Consulting Index is published by Consulting Hub Services Inc., which also operates The Consultant Exchange (TCX), a marketplace connecting independent franchise consultants with franchisor brands. TCX therefore holds a commercial position in the sector this report examines.\u201d That disclosure belongs in the conversation. So does the distinction between a disclosed survey and an independent census.

2What the fine print says

The method page describes a self administered online questionnaire, fielded from May 4 to June 19, 2026. The sample frame was 3,200 franchise consultants in the United States and Canada. There was no weighting, and respondents reported on the preceding twelve months from memory.

The limitations are unusually direct. The report states, \u201cThe sample is self selected. Respondents chose whether to participate.\u201d It also says, \u201cAll figures are self reported and unverified.\u201d Other warnings include, \u201cSubgroup bases are small.\u201d \u201cSeveral cells rest on very few respondents.\u201d And, \u201cThis edition establishes a baseline; it cannot show a trend.\u201d

The method page adds, \u201cThe report's claim rests on that scale and on full disclosure of how the data was gathered, not on statistical inference.\u201d Fair enough. Full disclosure helps readers judge the evidence. It does not remove self selection, nonresponse or memory from the evidence. In our opinion, a 7% response rate on a production survey creates a real risk that higher producers were more willing to answer. The respondent average describes the respondents. It does not describe the whole frame.

3The arithmetic

The placement distribution tells us something, although not what the cover line suggests. Ten percent reported 0 placements in the preceding twelve months. Forty one percent reported 1 to 4. Twenty four percent reported 5 to 9. Fourteen percent reported 10 to 13. Eleven percent reported 14 or more. The report notes that 2% placed 20 to 30 and 2% placed 31 or more.

The report's own summary says 51% placed four or fewer and 25% placed ten or more. Its \u201cTop Performers\u201d group, defined as respondents with 10 or more placements and roughly the top 20% of respondents, accounted for 63% of all units respondents reported placing. Respondents with 14 or more, roughly the top 10%, accounted for 43%. That is a concentrated distribution inside this sample.

We ran our own arithmetic as a sense check. Using the midpoint of each placement band, the average respondent comes out to about 6 placements in the year. Multiply 220 respondents by about 6 and the group reported roughly 1,300 to 1,400 placements. If the entire frame of 3,200 consultants matched the respondents, the implied field volume would be roughly 19,000 to 20,000 placements a year. That is a conditional calculation, not a finding. The condition does the heavy lifting.

4The SBA check

We compared that implied volume with PeerSense tabulation of the SBA's published 7(a) and 504 loan level records, limited to loans carrying an SBA franchise code. SBA fiscal years end September 30. The result was 7,662 franchise loans and about $6.5 billion approved in FY2025, compared with 6,332 franchise loans in FY2024 and 7,917 in FY2023.

SBA fiscal year	7(a) and 504 loans with a franchise code	Share of all 7(a) and 504 loans
2023	7,917	12.6%
2024	6,332	8.3%
2025	7,662	9.1%

SBA franchise loans, PeerSense tabulation of SBA 7(a) and 504 loan level data, fiscal years end September 30.

The implied 19,000 to 20,000 consultant placements would be more than double the 7,662 SBA franchise loans in FY2025. That does not prove the survey is wrong. Not every franchise purchase uses an SBA loan, and some SBA franchise loans go to existing franchisees expanding rather than new candidates. The SBA count is a ceiling test on the implied volume, not a count of consultant placements.

Still, the comparison deserves attention. A claim that implies more than twice the annual SBA franchise loan count should make readers slow down and examine the assumptions. The share of all 7(a) and 504 loans carrying a franchise code was 12.6% in FY2023, 8.3% in FY2024 and 9.1% in FY2025. Those figures do not answer how many franchise purchases use SBA financing. No published SBA, FRANdata, IFA or academic study we found states that share. Lopes Law LLC offers an unsourced practitioner estimate of \u201cApproximately 25% to 30% of franchise acquisitions involve SBA lending.\u201d That is an estimate from a law firm blog, not a published study.

5What the rest of the industry publishes

The other public numbers do not create a consultant census either. Franchise Update Media reported in its 2025 Annual Franchise Development Report, based on a survey of 128 franchisor brands, \u201cBrokers. 16% of budget for 20% of deals\u201d. It also reported that 44% of surveyed brands used brokers. In its 2026 report, Franchise Update Media wrote, \u201cOf the franchisors surveyed, 52% use brokers. That statistic has remained steady over the past five years.\u201d Among users, 70% secured a sale through a broker in the past year. Those figures concern franchisor reports, not consultant placements, but they offer a useful outside view of broker involvement.

The counts published by networks are mixed and overlap. IFPG says it is \u201cserving more than 1,500 franchisors, franchise consultants and vendor partners,\u201d which is not a consultant count. FranServe says it has \u201c650+ active consultants in North & South America\u201d. A 1851 Franchise article says FranNet \u201chas more than 100 experienced consultants across the United States, Canada and Germany\u201d. None of those statements establishes the total field, and the report's frame of 3,200 remains an asserted frame rather than an independent census.

The International Franchise Association projects franchise establishments to grow from 832,521 to 845,000 units in 2026, a net change of about 12,500 establishments after closures are included. That is not a count of new franchisees signed. Even so, our comparison is uncomfortable: the report's implied 19,000 to 20,000 consultant placements would exceed the entire net growth the IFA projects for United States franchise establishments in 2026.

Don Daszkowski, founder of IFPG, wrote in 2015, \u201cSince 2010, brokered franchise deals have remained steady, accounting for anywhere between 14 and 17 percent of sales of franchise units. These numbers include the nation's entire pool of over 3,000 national franchisors and also include companies that don't use brokers.\u201d That source comes from a broker network founder, not an independent study. It is context, not validation.

6What survives

The concentration finding survives, with the proper label attached. Among the 220 respondents, a relatively small group reported most of the placements. The respondents with 10 or more placements accounted for 63% of reported units, while those with 14 or more accounted for 43%. That may reflect a real feature of consultant production. It may also be amplified by who chose to answer. Both statements can be true.

The investment range finding is easier to use as a description of the sample. Eighty six percent of respondents said they place primarily in the $100K to $500K total investment range. Median monthly lead generation spend was $1,500 for the rest of the field, $3,000 for Top Performers and $5,000 for the elite tier. Again, these are self reported figures from a voluntary response group.

What does not survive is the idea that the survey median should become a market benchmark. A respondent's placement count is a claim to examine, not a credential to accept without checking. The report gives readers a starting point. It does not give them a census.

7What to do with it

Business owners should ask a consultant for the actual placement count behind any production claim and ask what period it covers. Ask who pays the consultant. Read the franchise disclosure document yourself, including the sections that explain fees, litigation, financial performance representations and the franchisor's financial condition. A survey cannot substitute for diligence on the brand or the person presenting it.

Consultants should not benchmark themselves against this survey's median. The method does not support that use. If you cite the report, label it accurately as a self selected survey of 220 respondents. If you want a market comparison, state the population, response rate and limits rather than presenting a conditional extrapolation as a field total.

For our shop, the useful lesson is narrower and more practical. Production is concentrated among respondents who reported more activity, and claims about consultant volume need evidence. That is enough to work with. The headline is doing more work than the method can carry.

8Sources

9Disclosures

This article is commentary and opinion from PeerSense. It is not a census, survey or independent audit of franchise consultants.

Quotations and figures are reproduced for criticism and commentary and were taken from the 2026 edition PDF of the Franchise Consulting Index, downloaded September 3, 2026.

The publisher has not reviewed this article. Corrections can be sent to info@peersense.com and will be published.

PeerSense holds referral agreements with franchise brands and earns a referral fee when a candidate it refers signs. PeerSense therefore has a commercial interest in the sector.

PeerSense earns advisory fees paid at closing by borrowers it places with lenders. PeerSense sources capital through a curated network of commercial lenders and capital sources.

This article is not legal, financial, tax or investment advice.

SBA figures are PeerSense's own tabulation of the SBA's published loan level data and may differ from SBA summary reports because of timing, cancellations and revisions.

The Franchise Consulting Index 2026 Does Not Establish a Consultant Census