# Comparing two Item 7 tables

The closest pair here is two filings issued three days apart. 375° Chicken 'n
Fries's disclosure document was issued on 30 April 2024 and Mad for Chicken's
on 3 May 2024, and every Mad for Chicken figure on this page is from that 3
May 2024 document, because a contemporaneous pair is the whole point. The
brand's current disclosure, issued 12 March 2025, is read against its
predecessor in [diffing the same offering](/diffing-the-same-offering/). They
use the same row names in nearly every bucket — **Architectural Plans**,
**Leasehold Improvements, Construction and/or Remodeling**, **Furniture,
Fixtures and Equipment**, **Business Licenses and Permits**, **Your Training
Expenses**, **Operating Expenses / Additional Funds - 3 months** — and both
are single-restaurant tables from chicken concepts headquartered in New York
State.

If any two tables here can be compared, it is these. Working the comparison
properly still starts with a disqualification, and it does not produce a
winner.

## First: are they the same kind of thing?

They are not. Mad for Chicken's 3 May 2024 Item 7 is a full restaurant of
2,000–4,000 square feet. 375°'s 2024 Item 7 is a single outlet of 800–1,500
square feet. The smaller format's ceiling is below the larger format's floor,
so no site satisfies both descriptions.

The same filing adds a second warning. Mad for Chicken's 3 May 2024 document
discloses an express format at $242,500–$466,700 alongside the full
restaurant at $320,125–$687,700. The express table is the one closer in
spirit to 375°'s outlet, and it has no line-item worksheet here. Comparing
375°'s rows against Mad for Chicken's full-restaurant rows is the comparison
available, not the comparison a buyer would most want.

Step one therefore ends with a written caveat, not with a green light. The
[format drives the total](/format-drives-the-total/) chapter is the longer
version of why that caveat is not a formality, and [diffing the same
offering](/diffing-the-same-offering/) applies the same disqualification to
one brand's successive filings instead of two brands in the same year.

## Line up buckets, and say when a bucket is a sum

Labels get compared row to row; costs get compared bucket to bucket. Both
filings' construction figures below are the sum of two rows inside that same
filing, and 375°'s technology figure is the sum of **POS System** and
**Computer Systems**. Nothing has been split, renamed, or moved between
brands.

| Bucket | Mad for Chicken, 2,000–4,000 sq ft, FDD issued 3 May 2024 | 375° Chicken 'n Fries, 800–1,500 sq ft, FDD issued 30 April 2024 |
| --- | ---: | ---: |
| Franchise fee | $35,000 | $40,000 |
| Training | $3,000–$6,000 | $100–$5,000 |
| Deposits and rent | $15,500–$37,500 | $10,000–$30,000 |
| Construction | $85,000–$255,000 | $108,000–$212,000 |
| Equipment and furniture | $85,000–$110,000 | $100,000–$120,000 |
| Signage | $5,500–$9,500 | $10,000–$12,000 |
| POS and technology | $3,000–$15,000 | $4,500–$7,500 |
| Opening inventory | $14,250–$28,200 | $5,000–$10,000 |
| Professional fees | $2,500–$7,000 | $2,000–$5,000 |
| Licenses and permits | $2,500–$5,000 | $2,000–$5,000 |
| Grand opening | $15,000 | $10,000 |
| Insurance | $2,500 | $2,500–$5,000 |
| Working capital, 3 months | $51,375–$162,000 | $30,000–$60,000 |
| Printed total | $320,125–$687,700 | $324,100–$521,500 |

Both tables use thirteen buckets and neither has a restaurant-package row or
a miscellaneous row, which is what makes the alignment unusually clean. Mad
for Chicken reaches thirteen buckets in fourteen rows and 375° in fifteen.

## Read the crossing, not the totals

The two printed ranges cross. 375°'s low of $324,100 is $3,975 above Mad for
Chicken's low of $320,125, while its high of $521,500 is $166,200 below. One
table starts higher and finishes much lower. Neither brand is "cheaper" in a
sentence that survives the next question.

Where the crossing comes from is visible bucket by bucket. The smaller
outlet's estimate is higher at both ends in three buckets: the franchise fee,
at $40,000 against $35,000; equipment and furniture, at $100,000–$120,000
against $85,000–$110,000; and signage, at $10,000–$12,000 against
$5,500–$9,500. The larger restaurant's estimate is higher at both ends in
six: training, deposits and rent, opening inventory, professional fees, grand
opening, and working capital. Two buckets cross internally — construction,
where 375° starts higher and ends lower, and technology, where Mad for
Chicken's single POS row runs $3,000–$15,000 against a two-row combination of
$4,500–$7,500.

One bucket carries most of the difference at the top. The additional-funds
rows are $102,000 apart at their highs, which is more than half of the
$166,200 gap between the two printed high totals — and both rows carry the
identical label **Operating Expenses / Additional Funds - 3 months**. Same
words, same stated period, highs $102,000 apart. The [additional-funds
line](/the-additional-funds-line/) chapter is where that row gets taken
apart; here it is enough to notice that the largest single driver of the
comparison is the row whose contents neither table describes.

## Check each filing's arithmetic before crossing between them

Both columns of both tables add to their printed totals here, so this step
passes quietly. It does not always. Shah's Halal Food's 2024 high column sums
to $410,000 against a printed $405,000, and the generated [cost
page](/costs/shahs-halal/) reports both. A comparison that starts from a
column that does not add carries that gap into every subsequent line. The
[low column and high column](/low-column-and-high-column/) chapter treats the
two columns as separate checks for exactly this reason.

## When the buckets refuse to line up

The 375° and Mad for Chicken pair is the exception. Take German Doner Kebab's
2024 table and Great Greek's 2023 table instead and the alignment breaks at step
two. German Doner Kebab discloses thirteen buckets across twenty rows,
including equipment of $166,500–$210,000, technology of $27,500–$30,000, and
signage of $20,000–$35,000. Great Greek discloses ten buckets across twelve
rows, with a single **Restaurant Package** of $225,964–$248,560 and no
equipment, technology, or signage row at all.

A bucket-by-bucket sheet would show Great Greek at nothing for equipment and
nothing for signage, which is false. The filing bundled those costs into a
package it did not itemise, and the [restaurant
package](/restaurant-package/) chapter keeps the bundle whole rather than
inventing a split to make a chart symmetrical. When that happens, the honest
comparison is at the level of the printed totals with the format and year
attached, plus a written note that the composition is not comparable. Two
tables that cannot be aligned should be reported as two tables, not averaged
into one.

## The facts that sit outside Item 7

Two opening estimates are not two businesses. Mad for Chicken's 3 May 2024
filing discloses a 5 percent royalty, a 1 percent brand fund plus a 1 percent
media marketing fee, and 1 percent required local advertising. 375°'s 2024
filing discloses 6 percent, 1 percent, and 1 percent. The brand with the
lower high total carries the higher royalty, and no Item 7 comparison can see
that. The [what Item 7 excludes](/what-item-7-excludes/) chapter collects the
rest.

Item 11 tracks the same direction as the Item 7 training rows in this pair:
the 3 May 2024 Mad for Chicken filing discloses 25 classroom hours and 106 on
the job, and 375°'s 30 April 2024 filing 23 and 67. Neither of those is Mad
for Chicken's current obligation — its 12 March 2025 filing keeps the 25
classroom hours and raises on-the-job training to 196, which is the largest
movement between that pair of documents and is treated in [what a revision
tells you](/what-a-revision-tells-you/). Both systems were small at their
2023 reporting dates — Mad for Chicken with 19 outlets, 14 of them
company-operated, and 375° with five, three of them company-operated. The
FTC's [FDD
walkthrough](https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2023/05/franchise-fundamentals-taking-deep-dive-franchise-disclosure-document)
recommends checking a filing against recent franchisees' actual opening
costs, and in a system with a handful of franchised units that check is
short.

## The comparison sheet

1. Write both format statements and both issuance dates at the top.
2. Confirm neither filing discloses a second format you should be using
   instead.
3. Copy every row under its own label; only then group into buckets, marking
   each bucket that is a sum of rows within one filing.
4. Add each filing's low and high columns and compare them with its own
   printed total.
5. Note every bucket one filing has and the other does not, and write why —
   bundled, absent, or elsewhere.
6. Compare bucket to bucket in both directions and count the crossings.
7. Identify the single bucket carrying most of the difference at the high
   end, and ask what it contains.
8. Add Item 6 rates, Item 8 required purchases, and Item 11 hours before
   drawing any conclusion.

One column of that sheet is unavailable from a single document. Whether
either filing's figures are a revision of the year before, and by how much,
is a separate comparison with its own preconditions; [what changes between
two filings](/what-changes-between-two-filings/) is where Mad for Chicken's
2024 and 2025 tables are put side by side, and [a first Item
7](/a-first-item-7/) covers the case where there is no earlier filing to
compare with at all.

Done this way, the comparison produces a list: why the smaller format prices
equipment higher, why the larger format's opening-inventory estimate is
nearly three times the smaller one's, and what an identically worded
three-month reserve is meant to cover in two different documents. Done the
other way, it produces a ranking, and the ranking is wrong before the second
column is filled in.

---
HTML: https://donerhandbook.com/comparing-two-item-7-tables/