# Goosehead Insurance Item 19: Why the P75-to-P25 Gap Is the Whole Story

> Goosehead Insurance Item 19: median $249K, P25 $100K, P75 $672K across 1,525 tenured producers. The 6.7× quartile spread, what it means for new operators, and how to underwrite to P25.

**Last updated**: 2026-06-05
**URL**: https://vetmyfranchise.com/blog/goosehead-insurance-item-19-deep-dive?utm_source=claude&utm_medium=ai_referral&utm_campaign=vmf_agent_md

> **Quick answer:** Goosehead's Item 19 reports a $249K median revenue across 1,525 franchise producers with 3+ years tenure — but the P25 is $100K and the P75 is $672K. That 6.7× quartile spread is the story. Insurance franchising is producer-driven; operator effort and book-of-business quality swing revenue far more than the brand. Underwrite to the P25, not the median.

## The Quartile Spread That Defines Goosehead

Most Item 19 disclosures hide their distribution behind a single median or average. Goosehead's most recent disclosure does the opposite — it publishes quartiles, which is the right way to disclose data for a business with high variance. The structure tells you everything you need to know about the underlying economics.

Across 1,525 franchise producers with at least three years of tenure, Goosehead reports a $248,707 median annual revenue. That's the middle of the distribution. Above it, the top-quartile producer earns $671,798. Below it, the bottom-quartile producer earns $99,864. The 6.7× gap from P25 to P75 is one of the widest in the franchise universe, and the reason for that gap is structural rather than coincidental.

Insurance franchising is producer-driven. The franchisee doesn't operate a retail store that customers walk into; they sell insurance products and build a book of business over years. Revenue scales with the producer's sales activity, network, and book quality. That makes operator effort the dominant variable, and operator skill varies enormously across any large sample.

## The Numbers, In Detail

| Metric | Value |
|---|---:|
| Sample size | 1,525 franchise producers |
| Sample criteria | 3+ years tenure |
| Reporting period | Fiscal year 2024 |
| Median annual revenue | $248,707 |
| P25 (bottom quartile) | $99,864 |
| P75 (top quartile) | $671,798 |
| P75 to P25 spread | 6.7× |
| Total system units | 1,103 |
| Total investment (Item 7) | $66,000 - $108,500 |
| Royalty rate | 20%-50% (varies by product/tier) |

A few observations worth pulling out. The 3+ year tenure filter explicitly strips out new producers — Item 19 doesn't speak to year-one or year-two revenue. That's a methodological choice that produces a more stable disclosure but means buyers must layer their own ramp assumption on top. The total investment is unusually low for a franchise — $66K-$108K — which compresses the absolute capital at risk even when revenue lands in the bottom quartile. And the royalty structure is unusual, varying from 20% to 50% depending on product mix, which is a more complex revenue-sharing arrangement than the standard 5-8% flat rate in most categories.

## What the Quartile Spread Tells You About Operator Fit

A 6.7× spread isn't an accident. It's the signature of a business where individual capability drives outcomes. Three categories of franchises produce this kind of spread:

**Sales-driven service businesses.** Insurance, real estate, financial advisory, B2B services. Revenue scales with the producer's sales activity, prospecting capability, and relationship development. Top producers compound advantages — more clients lead to more referrals lead to bigger books. Bottom producers struggle to build the initial book and can plateau at sustenance levels.

**Recurring-revenue service businesses with sales ramps.** Home health, security monitoring, some IT MSP categories. Similar dynamic — the producer's first-year activity sets the trajectory for years 2-5.

**Operator-intensive home service businesses.** Some HVAC, plumbing, and restoration franchises produce wide quartile spreads because route density, technician productivity, and operator presence drive throughput.

QSR, retail, and franchise categories with standardized customer experiences typically produce tighter quartile spreads (2-3× P75/P25) because the brand and operations carry more of the revenue weight. Goosehead's spread is closer to a sales-business pattern than a retail pattern.

The implication for a Goosehead buyer: the brand isn't the variable. Your sales capability is. If you have a strong professional network, sales experience, and the willingness to do producer-style outbound work, the top quartile is reachable. If you don't, the bottom quartile is where you land — and the bottom quartile of Goosehead is a survivable business but not a comfortable one.

## Year-One Reality Is Below the P25

The Item 19 filter — 3+ years tenure — exists for a methodological reason: producer revenue ramps over the first 2-3 years as the book of business is built. A first-year Goosehead producer typically lands at $30K-$70K in revenue, depending on prior sales experience and market conditions. Year two often runs $60K-$120K. Year three and beyond is when the Item 19 disclosure starts describing reality.

This is why the disclosure explicitly excludes the ramp period — including it would drag the median down significantly and confuse the picture for prospective franchisees. The trade-off is that buyers have to layer their own assumptions on top:

- Year 1: $30K-$70K
- Year 2: $60K-$120K
- Year 3+: $100K-$700K, depending on producer trajectory

The variance widens dramatically in year three because that's when high-performing producers compound past the median while struggling producers plateau. By year five, the cohort has substantially separated.

## How the Low Investment Changes the Risk Math

Most franchise opportunities require buyers to model the worst case carefully because the capital at risk is meaningful. A $400K QSR has $400K of capital at stake; a year-one underperformance can erode equity quickly. A $66K-$108K Goosehead investment changes the math.

Even if a new Goosehead producer lands in the bottom quartile and stays there — $100K of annual revenue at year three — the deal is generally survivable. The royalty structure (20-50% depending on tier) is high in percentage terms but applies to revenue that's relatively pure (no inventory cost, low fixed overhead). A $100K-revenue producer with $40K-$60K of royalty cost and minimal fixed overhead can still cover personal income and operating expenses.

The absolute downside is small. The absolute upside (P75 at $672K) is large. That asymmetry is what makes Goosehead attractive to sales-oriented buyers with limited capital — and unattractive to capital-deployment buyers who prefer larger, more predictable businesses. The Item 19 spread isn't a flag; it's the business model.

## What This Means for Buyers

If you're evaluating Goosehead:

- **Underwrite to the P25, not the median.** A $100K year-three revenue base should be the worst-case scenario you stress-test against. If the deal works at the P25, the upside is genuine optionality. If you need the median to make the math work, the bottom-half outcome will surprise you.
- **Plan for a meaningful ramp.** Years one and two will run materially below the P25. If you can't cover personal income from other sources during the ramp, this isn't the right structure. The $66K-$108K investment is just the capital outlay; income replacement is a separate budget.
- **Sales capability is the dominant variable.** If you have prior insurance, financial services, or B2B sales experience, the brand's playbook plus your sales muscle is the combination the top quartile represents. Without that capability, you're betting on the brand carrying you, which the data says it doesn't.
- **The 3+ year tenure filter in Item 19 is unusually transparent.** Goosehead is telling you explicitly that the published numbers describe mature producers, not new ones. That methodological honesty is rare — most disclosures don't flag the filter as prominently.

For broader context on Item 19 disclosure patterns, see our [Item 19 trap brands](/blog/item-19-trap-brands-2026-when-average-lies?utm_source=claude&utm_medium=ai_referral&utm_campaign=vmf_agent_md) analysis on brands where the headline average hides the distribution. For verification methodology, [how to verify Item 19 earnings claims](/blog/how-to-verify-item-19-earnings-claims?utm_source=claude&utm_medium=ai_referral&utm_campaign=vmf_agent_md).