Compare the locationsthat are comparable.
marql groups your locations by how they actually trade and shows each one where it sits among its peers — as a position, and as the money per month between it and the median.
Benchmarks · demo network
90-day window, ending yesterday
- this location
- 18thpercentile in its peer group
- to the peer median
- 1.9pp of margin
- the same gap, in money
- 950 €a month, at this location's revenue
a position is never shown without the money · cohorts under 4 participants stay hidden
Group, place, price, decide.
Most benchmarking fails at the first step. A ranking that puts a mall kiosk under a flagship teaches a manager nothing except to ignore it.
Comparable locations are grouped
If you label your locations by format, that split comes first: a kiosk is never in a flagship's group, and a format with fewer than three locations is told to compare with its own history instead of being dropped in with everyone. Inside that, grouping is by how they trade — revenue scale, volatility, average check, margin, how many days they are actually open — not by their place on a map. Under eight locations the network is one group, because splitting it would compare nobody with anybody.
Each one gets a position
Not a league-table rank but a percentile inside its group, read against the group's own quartiles, so a manager can see whether the gap to the middle is a step or a canyon.
The gap is priced
For margin and waste, the distance to the peer median is converted into money per month at that location's own revenue. A card is raised only when the position is low and the money is material.
It becomes a decision
The gap turns into a proposed action, and it is measured afterwards on the location's own margin or waste — never on the percentile, which would move when the peers move.
Before a comparison is fair
Who counts as a peer.
- you label your locations by format
- the format splits first, and a format with fewer than three locations gets no benchmark — it is told to compare with its own history
- clusters cover enough of the network
- fresh clusters by revenue scale, volatility, average check, margin and days actually traded
- they do not
- contiguous revenue bands of at least four locations each
- the network is under eight locations
- one group — splitting it would compare nobody with anybody
The comparisons a chain runs every week.
Who is really behind, by how much in money, whether the group is fair, and whether the person reading it is allowed to see what they are being compared with.
Peer groups that hold up
Format first where you label it, fresh clusters when they cover enough of the network, contiguous revenue bands when they do not, and one group for a small chain — the four rules are drawn above.
A kiosk is judged against kiosks, and the ranking gets taken seriously.
A position, not a verdict
Each location sits as a percentile against its peers, with the group's quartiles drawn around it.
You see whether being behind means a nudge or a rebuild.
The gap in money
The distance to the peer median becomes money per month, computed on that location's own revenue.
The weekly review argues about an amount instead of a ranking.
Five things compared
Margin, average check, revenue, waste and sales per hour worked — the last two only where the data behind them actually exists.
A metric nobody's data supports stays out rather than ranking everyone by a zero.
Who gets counted
A location needs data on at least half the days of the window, and a group needs at least three participants before it is ranked at all.
A shop that opened last month, or one with a broken sync, does not quietly drag the median.
Everyone sees their own
Positions are computed across the whole network, then projected to what the reader is allowed to see; a cohort too small to stay anonymous is hidden rather than shown.
A store manager can be given their standing without being given the network's books.
when a benchmark becomes a card
materiality floor: the greater of 250 € and 1.5% of the location's monthly revenue
A position on its own never raises a card, so nobody is handed a ranking with no action attached to it.
Whose numbers you are being compared to.
This is where most benchmarking claims quietly overstate. Ours is plain about the boundary, because a manager who finds out later stops trusting the rest of the product.
These comparisons happen inside your own network: your locations against each other.
Nothing here places one company's location beside another's.
Cross-company peer groups at location level are documented as the next step and are not built, so a location is never placed in a group it does not own.
Waste is only ranked when enough of the network actually reports write-offs, and labour productivity only where hours are recorded — a zero from a source that does not send the data would otherwise look like a perfect score.
A location with data on fewer than half the days of the window sits the round out, and is reported as excluded rather than ranked on a gap.
A percentile on its own never raises a card.
The money has to be material too, so nobody is handed a position with no action attached to it.
Asked by the manager who is being compared.
Not here. Everything on this page compares your locations with each other, with their plan and with their own history — a location of yours is never placed in a group with somebody else's. Cross-company peer groups at that level are documented as a next step and are not built, and we would rather say that than let you find out in front of your team.
By how they trade, not by geography: revenue scale, volatility, average check, margin and how many days they are actually open. Where the network is large enough, similar locations are clustered and each group needs at least four members to exist; where clustering does not cover enough of the network, locations fall into contiguous revenue bands instead. Under eight locations there is one group — the whole network — because any split would produce groups too small to mean anything.
That is precisely what the grouping is for: they land in different groups and are placed inside their own. And every location is separately measured against its own normal for the day of the week, so even one with no real peer anywhere in the network still has a standard to be held to.
Their own locations and where those sit against their cohort — not the network's finances. Positions are computed across the full network, because a percentile of a handful of stores is meaningless, and then projected onto what that person is allowed to see. If the cohort is too small to stay anonymous, the cohort figures are hidden instead of shown.
Read the money next to it. For margin and waste, the distance to the peer median is priced per month at that location's revenue, and a card only appears when both the position is low and the amount is worth a manager's morning. When you act on it, the result is measured on the location's own margin or waste — never on the percentile, which can move because the peers moved.
Yes. Networks can be structured as parent and child organisations, money metrics are converted to the network's base currency before anything is compared, and network-level margin is revenue-weighted rather than averaged — so a large market does not carry the same weight as a small one just because both are one row in a table.
Ready to see
the euros it found?
The walkthrough is built around the tills and accounting you already run. Leave your details and pick a time.