# Shah's Halal Food vs bluTaco

Shah's Halal Food and bluTaco sit next to each other because the question is usually the same: if you are choosing between two concepts this week, which filing facts actually differ?

| Field | Shah's Halal Food | bluTaco |
| --- | --- | --- |
| What it is | New York-area chicken and rice | Tacos and quick-service Mexican |
| Category | Mediterranean & halal | Tacos |
| US offering | Yes | Yes |
| Headquarters | Amityville, NY | Holts Summit, MO |
| Founded | 2005 | 2017 |
| Franchising since | — | 2018 |
| Units | 58 (2023) | 34 (2024) |
| Franchised / company | 0 / 14 | 33 / 1 |
| Typical size | 1,200–2,000 sq ft | — |
| Total investment | $197,000–$405,000 | — |
| Initial franchise fee | $30,000 | None |
| Royalty | 5% | — |
| Brand fund | 1% | — |
| Local advertising | 1% | Not required |
| Total ongoing fee | 7% | — |
| Initial term | 10 years | — |
| Territory | Up to five miles by driving distance, smaller in cities. Non-traditional sites are excluded. | A one-mile radius or less, set by population |
| Item 19 FPR | No | No |
| Training hours | 104 | 11.5 |
| Item 21, most recent result | $675,588 (FY2023) | ($311,486) (FY2022) |
| Auditor's opinion | Unmodified | Unmodified |
| Source | FDD issued 10 April 2024 | May 2024 comparative study of published FDDs |

One of these rows discloses almost every field this directory tracks. The other leaves the most important ones empty, and the empty cells are the entire story. Shah's Halal Food comes from an FDD issued 10 April 2024: $197,000–$405,000 of total investment, a $30,000 franchise fee, 5% royalty, 1% brand fund, 1% local advertising, a ten-year term, fifteen Item 7 line items. bluTaco comes from the May 2024 comparative study of published FDDs with no initial franchise fee, no disclosed royalty, no disclosed brand fund, no required local advertising, no Item 7, no square footage and no fixed term — the agreement runs until either party terminates it.

## A blank is not a zero

bluTaco is unranked on the fee table for exactly that reason. A brand that does not disclose both a royalty and a brand fund cannot be scored, and defaulting either to zero would place the least forthcoming row at the top of a table about cost. So the first question in this comparison is how the bluTaco franchisor is compensated at all, because a franchisor with no franchise fee and no disclosed percentage is being paid somewhere, and nothing published here says where. Supply, equipment, required services, licensing of a host location: you do not choose among those from the outside. They ask, in writing, and they read Item 5, Item 6 and Item 8 of the current filing together before anything else in the packet.

Against that, Shah's fee structure is conventional and legible. Seven points of gross sales, ranked, with a $1,000–$5,000 grand opening campaign and a transfer fee of 50% of the then-current franchise fee. Its Item 7 is itemised: build-out and construction at $80,000–$160,000, a fixture package at $30,000–$50,000, signage at $10,000–$28,000, initial inventory at $10,000–$30,000, travel to attend training at $2,000–$20,000, and three months of additional funds at $10,000–$30,000, inside a full-sized restaurant of 1,200–2,000 square feet. One arithmetic note travels with it and should not be smoothed over: the high column of those fifteen items sums to $410,000 while the filing prints, and its cover page repeats, a total of $405,000. The gap is in the document. Any consultant who reconciles it silently has just edited a disclosure.

## Two footprints, and neither is what it looks like

Shah's 2023 count is 58 outlets, 14 of them company-operated and none operating as franchises. Forty-four ran under a license agreement. bluTaco's 2024 count is 34 outlets, 33 franchised and 1 company, from a brand founded in 2017 and franchising since 2018. Read those two rows next to each other and the conventional assumption inverts: the system with the fully disclosed fee stack, the ten-year term and the itemised Item 7 had no franchises operating at its filing date, while the system that discloses almost no fee structure has a footprint that is nearly all franchised.

That matters for validation, which is the only part of diligence that cannot be done from paper. Item 20's current and former franchisee lists are the calling list, and they attach to franchise relationships. On the Shah's side that list, as of the 2024 filing, describes something other than an operating franchise base; the licensees are operating evidence about the food and the format, but they signed a different instrument with different obligations and different remedies. On the bluTaco side there are 33 franchised outlets to call as of the 2024 count, and the questions to ask them are the ones the filing does not answer: what they pay, when, and to whom.

Shah's discloses no year it began franchising, which is consistent with that history and is itself a fact to raise. bluTaco discloses 2018.

## Term, territory and the shape of the commitment

Shah's runs ten years with one additional ten-year term, up to five miles by driving distance and smaller in cities, with non-traditional sites excluded. bluTaco has no fixed term at all — the relationship continues until a party ends it — and a territory of a one-mile radius or less, set by population. An open-ended agreement is a different risk from a dated one. There is no renewal cliff and no renewal fee, and equally no contractual runway a lender or a landlord can look at, and no defined period over which the buyer amortises whatever they spend. Ask what notice each side must give, what happens to the site and equipment on termination, and whether the transfer fee of $2,500 is the only cost of an exit.

Training is the other end of the same spectrum. Shah's requires 19 classroom hours and 85 on the job. bluTaco requires no classroom hours and 11.5 on the job, the lightest training commitment on the table. That is a statement about how much system there is to transfer, and someone with no restaurant background should hear it as one.

## What cannot be compared here

Capital, most obviously. bluTaco publishes no Item 7 here and no footprint, so there is no way to put a number beside Shah's $197,000–$405,000, and no honest way to construct one. Neither brand makes a financial performance representation — Shah's filing states expressly that it does not — so nothing on either side supports a projection, and a broker's slide showing store averages is not a substitute for the representation neither franchisor made.

What the pair does illustrate is that a fee table sorts what filings disclose, not what businesses cost. Read [how consultants use this](/how-consultants-use-this/) for the order those questions belong in.


This is a filing comparison, not a recommendation. Neither column is a winner. Read the full cards: [Shah's Halal Food](/franchises/shahs-halal/) and [bluTaco](/franchises/blutaco/).

---
HTML: https://franchiselandscape.com/compare/shahs-halal-vs-blutaco/