Three ways in.
All three are equipped kitchens producing food you own the brands of. What differs is who owns the building services, how fast you open, and how much capital goes into the fabric rather than the cooking line.
Commissary bay
You licence a bay inside a purpose-built ghost kitchen site. Extraction, grease interceptor, fire suppression, drainage, waste handling and the rider collection area are already installed and already compliant. You fit out your own cooking line, refrigeration and prep, and you trade under your own brands.
| Model A at a glance | |
|---|---|
| Building services | Provided by the operator |
| Capital | Equipment and fit-out of the bay only |
| Speed to open | Fastest of the three |
| Monthly cost | Licence fee, usually all-inclusive |
| Main risk | Site operator's viability and house rules |
| Exit | Give notice and remove your equipment |
What actually decides whether it works
This is where we point most first-time owners. The single largest and most unpredictable cost in a shell fit-out is extraction, and in a commissary it already exists. You also inherit a site that has already passed inspection, which removes a great deal of timeline risk. The trade is control: you operate under someone else's house rules, in a shared building, on a licence rather than a lease, and if the site operator gets into difficulty that becomes your problem too.
Multi-brand kitchen
Not a different building — a different intent. A bay or unit equipped and staffed deliberately to carry three or four delivery brands off one line and one rota, with menus engineered around a shared prep list so the extra brands add revenue without adding much cost.
| Model B at a glance | |
|---|---|
| Building services | Either route above or below |
| Capital | Equipment sized for range, not just volume |
| Speed to open | Medium |
| Monthly cost | As the site route, plus per-brand listing effort |
| Main risk | Menu sprawl and ticket-time collapse |
| Exit | Brands are yours; retire or sell them individually |
What actually decides whether it works
This is the honest answer to why you are buying equipment. Rent, extraction, the cooking line and the rota are fixed the day you open. One brand carries all of it. Four spread it across four listings in four search categories, which also reduces dependence on any single platform placement. The discipline it demands is real: the brands must share ingredients and equipment. Four unrelated cuisines off one line is three kitchens pretending to be one, and it shows up as long ticket times and waste.
Own production kitchen
Lease a shell and fit it out completely — extraction to roof level, fire suppression, drainage, grease interceptor, utilities, the lot. The kitchen is yours and configured exactly to your menu, with the lowest running cost per order once it is open.
| Model C at a glance | |
|---|---|
| Building services | You design, fund and install them |
| Capital | Highest by a wide margin |
| Speed to open | Slowest |
| Monthly cost | Rent plus utilities and maintenance |
| Main risk | Build overrun and permit timelines |
| Exit | Assign or surrender the lease; fit-out rarely recovers its cost |
What actually decides whether it works
Worth it at volume, or where you intend to supply several sites from one production kitchen. Not worth it for a first venture. The build is where budgets die, and the line that does it is almost never the equipment — it is extraction, utility upgrades and the works needed to satisfy an inspector. Those are quoted after survey, run on other people's timetables, and are the reason a shell that looked cheap turns out not to be.
The comparison in one table.
Capital bands are indicative planning ranges for a first venture, not quotations. Your figures depend entirely on city, menu and the state of the site you take.
| Factor | A — Commissary bay | B — Multi-brand | C — Own unit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indicative capital | Lowest | Low to moderate | Highest |
| Extraction cost | None — provided | None or full, by route | Full, and the largest line |
| Time to first order | Fastest | Medium | Slowest |
| Permit path | Site already approved; you register | By route | Full inspection of a new kitchen |
| Fixed monthly cost | Licence fee | Licence or rent, spread over more brands | Rent, rates, utilities |
| Revenue per fixed pound | One brand's worth | Highest | Depends on brand count |
| Control | Lowest | Medium | Highest |
| Our usual recommendation | Start here | Run it this way | Only at volume |
They are not alternatives. Most of the ventures we would actually build are a commissary bay run as a multi-brand kitchen — lowest capital and lowest build risk, with the fixed cost spread across several listings. Model C becomes the right answer once volume justifies owning the fabric.
Not sure which route fits?
Bring your capital range and the cuisine you have in mind. We will tell you which site type and how many brands we would actually build.