Cashflow
Routes
Menu
Explore the map ↗

Decision utility · Step 5

Route
Fit

Name your constraints. State your tradeoffs. See which operating routes fit—and inspect every reason, conflict, assumption, and diligence question behind the result.

15 routes evaluatedBrowser-local inputsOpen comparator ↗

Build your decision frame

Constraints first. Preferences second.

Capital and weekly owner time carry three times the weight of each active preference. Neutral preferences disappear from the calculation.

Local by design

This interactive calculation runs in your browser. It asks for no name, email, company, or financial records and does not submit these inputs.

01

Hard constraint · weight 3

Available capital

$250,000
Compared with each route's illustrative acquisition and transition capital—not a listing price or financing recommendation.
02

Hard constraint · weight 3

Weekly owner time

25 hours
Compared with low-confidence normalized owner-hours assumptions—not seller claims or promises of absentee ownership.

03 · Structural preferences

Choose the direction you prefer.

Every active preference receives weight 1. Flexible choices receive no weight and do not dilute the other criteria.

Recurring-revenue qualityHow contractual, retained, and forecastable is the core revenue model?
Scale: One-off · Repeat transactional · Hybrid repeat · Membership/contract core · Contracted/occupancy
Asset intensityHow much value and operating risk sit in physical assets or real estate?
Scale: Minimal · Light · Moderate · Heavy · Very heavy
Labor intensityHow dependent is service delivery on recruiting, scheduling, and supervising people?
Scale: Minimal · Light · Moderate · Heavy · Very heavy
Operational complexityHow many interacting systems must perform reliably for cash flow to hold?
Scale: Low · Moderate · High
Contract / lease dependencyHow much route value depends on assignable contracts, leases, permits, or site rights?
Scale: Limited · Low · Moderate · High · Critical

Results update as your constraints and preferences change.

Your current decision frame

Best-fitting routes under these inputs.

Fit percentages are deterministic weighted calculations conditional on your inputs. They are not universal scores, success probabilities, forecasts, valuations, or recommendations.

Rank 01Strong fit
80%
03

Vending

Deterministic user-weighted fit calculation

Why it fits

  • Budget clears the full illustrative capital range.
  • Available time clears the full illustrative owner-hours range.
  • Operational complexity closely matches the stated preference.

Preference tensions

  • Contract / lease dependency runs against the stated preference.
Audit calculation

Capital budget: 100%Weight 3 · $250,000 available versus $120K–$150K illustrative capital.

Owner time: 100%Weight 3 · 25 hours available versus 16–24 hrs / wk illustrative owner involvement.

Recurring-revenue quality: 50%Weight 1 · User prefers higher; route is Hybrid repeat (3/5).

Labor intensity: 50%Weight 1 · User prefers lower; route is Moderate (3/5).

Operational complexity: 100%Weight 1 · User prefers lower; route is Low (1/3).

Contract / lease dependency: 0%Weight 1 · User prefers lower; route is Critical (5/5).

Assumptions and diligence

$120K–$150K capital is an illustrative underwriting scenario with moderate confidence.

16–24 hrs / wk owner involvement is an illustrative operating assumption with low confidence.

  1. Verify sales at machine level
  2. Inspect placement agreements
  3. Review product and commission costs
Rank 02Conditional fit
78%
02

ATM Route

Deterministic user-weighted fit calculation

Why it fits

  • Budget clears the full illustrative capital range.
  • Available time clears the full illustrative owner-hours range.
  • Labor intensity closely matches the stated preference.

Preference tensions

  • Contract / lease dependency runs against the stated preference.
Audit calculation

Capital budget: 100%Weight 3 · $250,000 available versus $105K–$135K illustrative capital.

Owner time: 100%Weight 3 · 25 hours available versus 8–14 hrs / wk illustrative owner involvement.

Recurring-revenue quality: 50%Weight 1 · User prefers higher; route is Hybrid repeat (3/5).

Labor intensity: 75%Weight 1 · User prefers lower; route is Light (2/5).

Operational complexity: 50%Weight 1 · User prefers lower; route is Moderate (2/3).

Contract / lease dependency: 0%Weight 1 · User prefers lower; route is Critical (5/5).

Assumptions and diligence

$105K–$135K capital is an illustrative underwriting scenario with moderate confidence.

8–14 hrs / wk owner involvement is an illustrative operating assumption with low confidence.

  1. Verify processor statements by location
  2. Read change-of-control language
  3. Audit withdrawals, downtime, and chargebacks
Rank 03Conditional fit
70%
01

Laundromat

Deterministic user-weighted fit calculation

Why it fits

  • Budget reaches the illustrative capital range.
  • Available time clears the full illustrative owner-hours range.
  • Recurring-revenue quality closely matches the stated preference.

Preference tensions

  • Contract / lease dependency runs against the stated preference.
Audit calculation

Capital budget: 73%Weight 3 · $250,000 available versus $240K–$330K illustrative capital.

Owner time: 100%Weight 3 · 25 hours available versus 12–22 hrs / wk illustrative owner involvement.

Recurring-revenue quality: 75%Weight 1 · User prefers higher; route is Membership / contract core (4/5).

Labor intensity: 50%Weight 1 · User prefers lower; route is Moderate (3/5).

Operational complexity: 50%Weight 1 · User prefers lower; route is Moderate (2/3).

Contract / lease dependency: 0%Weight 1 · User prefers lower; route is Critical (5/5).

Assumptions and diligence

$240K–$330K capital is an illustrative underwriting scenario with moderate confidence.

12–22 hrs / wk owner involvement is an illustrative operating assumption with low confidence.

  1. Reconcile water usage to claimed turns
  2. Inspect every machine and service log
  3. Review lease term, options, CAM, and assignment

Alternatives and conflicts

Every route remains visible.

Audit the model

Nothing is hidden in the ranking.

Capital · weight 3. Full compatibility at or above the modeled high end; partial compatibility inside the range; explicit conflict below the modeled low end.

Owner time · weight 3. Uses the same disclosed structure against the normalized weekly range.

Each active preference · weight 1. Route scores are normalized to their own scales and reversed when lower is preferred.

Fit percentage. Weighted points divided by active weight, rounded to a whole percentage. Hard conflicts force the route below non-conflicted alternatives.

Educational decision aid only. Validate any real opportunity with primary financial, legal, operating, asset, and local-market diligence.