Operators

Steer the group with context.
Price and expand with data.
Maximise your exit.

Sorrel converts public review data into strategic intelligence for boards.

Used during expansion, pricing optimisation, and at exit.

Speak to us See how it works
Across the estate

Read the group in context.

Performance versus national, regional and local competitors and early sight into pressure or opportunity markets.

  • Group performance benchmarked against competitors and franchise systems nationally and from the group's trading footprint.
  • Measure competitive intensity between trading areas for early sight into risk and opportunity markets.
  • Identify underperforming sites in the context of their trading area competitors, not their performance in a vacuum.
An independent, fully contextualized view of our brand and competitive landscape that we simply couldn’t have produced on our own.
Sean PourteymourExecutive Chairman, Luna Grill Restaurants
Sorrel’s analysis measured how guests perceive Luna Grill relative to our competitors, both across our full trading footprint and within each individual trading area. It confirmed where we already lead, pinpointed exactly where to focus next, and gave us a clear read on how our proposition is likely to perform in new markets, along with visibility to the competition in those markets. It gave us an independent, fully contextualized view of our brand and competitive landscape that we simply couldn’t have produced on our own.
Sean PourteymourExecutive Chairman, Luna Grill Restaurants
Group KPA performance vs national competitors.
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Hotel service Hotel value Room decor Room size Arrival experience Hotel decor F&B service F&B value Food quality Group Competitor A Competitor B
Competitive positioning: group performance vs trading area competitors.
Glasgow Edinburgh Newcastle Leeds Liverpool Manchester Nottingham Birmingham Cambridge Cardiff Bristol Reading London Brighton Manchester Trading area read TRADING AREA vs THE GROUP across 14 Manchester competitors Trading area The group Service 3.92 4.18 Value 3.71 3.98 Quality 4.05 4.22 EXPERIENCE, COMPETITOR SPLIT The group 4.31 Competitor A 4.12 Competitor B 3.98 Competitor C 3.84 +6.2% Group Experience vs the Manchester trading area benchmark GROUP vs TRADING AREA COMPETITORS >+10% +5% 0 -5% <-10%
VFM perception, year on year. Price increases marked.
4.5 4.25 4.0 3.75 3.5 +5% +3% 4.10 3.95 4.00 4.05 2022 2023 2024 2025
Food quality vs value for money.
5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Food quality Value for money Cava The Kebab Shop Taziki's Sweetgreen The group
Data derived from group performance in California, Texas and Arizona, February 2024 to February 2026.
On pricing

Price with data, not instinct.

A read on pricing power and risk across the group. Headroom signals per site and trading-area. VFM perception measured before and after price changes to assess price sensitivity.

  • Quantify pricing power across the estate
  • Pricing headroom and risk group-wide, per trading area and per site
  • Competitor benchmarking to validate the price thesis
  • Measure the impact of historic price changes to establish price elasticity
Competitive landscape, by trading area.
FRAGMENTED SATURATED UNDEVELOPED ★ UNDERSERVED Competitive intensity Competitor presence Low High NYC LA Miami Boston San Francisco Chicago Pittsburgh Cleveland Nashville Charlotte Raleigh Austin Austin Trading area read TRADING AREA vs THE GROUP across 14 Austin competitors Trading area The group Service 4.02 4.10 Value 3.78 3.85 Quality 4.15 4.05 COMPETITOR A SPOTLIGHT KPA breakdown Service 4.20 Value 3.85 Quality 4.30 Site growth since 2019 3 14 2019 2024
Competitive intensity = aggregate category Experience per trading area. Competitor presence = competitor category sites per trading area.
Into the next market

Open with evidence, not hunch.

A read on each new market under consideration. Local expectations, competitive intensity, competitor traction and entry timing. The evidence behind expansion intelligence.

In each market, read:

  • Competitive intensity with aggregated and per-competitor sentiment
  • Competitor landscape with per-competitor site counts
  • Competitor traction with entry timing and estate growth
Guest experience, group vs competitor average.
4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.0 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 4.20 4.48 The group Competitor average
Group KPA performance vs competitor average.
5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 4.20 3.85 Service 3.95 3.78 Value 4.30 3.92 Quality 4.05 3.80 Atmosphere The group Competitor average
At exit

Exit with data.

Take the group to market with evidence of the group's strengthes and its market position during investment processes. Strengthen with customer data the buy-side can verify, and pre-empt what buyer diligence would surface.

  • Independent customer intelligence, ready for the data room.
  • Proof of historic performance, improvement and momentum.
  • Competitor-relative strengths and business quality signals.
Whoever is running the rule over a hospitality acquisition might like to take a look.
Peter MartinPeach 2020
Across the estate, into the next market, at exit

Get in touch.

Schedule a call directly, or email us at sam@sorrel.ai.

Response within one working day. NDA-covered.