Search among the top brands by number of locations
Join us for a demo where we'll discuss how Realytics can support your business growth and adaptability in changing market conditions
Managing Partner, Global Business Development
Search among the top brands by number of locations
Join us for a demo where we'll discuss how Realytics can support your business growth and adaptability in changing market conditions
Managing Partner, Global Business Development
Search among the top brands by number of locations
Join us for a demo where we'll discuss how Realytics can support your business growth and adaptability in changing market conditions
Managing Partner, Global Business Development
Search among the top brands by number of locations
Join us for a demo where we'll discuss how Realytics can support your business growth and adaptability in changing market conditions
Managing Partner, Global Business Development
Available by subscription
Available by subscription
See what factors influence 鰻 performance in the Japan and how they change over time
See what factors influence 鰻 performance in the Japan and how they change over time
Join us for a demo where we'll discuss how Realytics can support your business growth and adaptability in changing market conditions
Managing Partner, Global Business Development
Search among the top brands by number of locations
Discover your traffic workload during different times of the day
In Cafés & Restaurants
In Cafés & Restaurants
An analysis of 鰻' competitors in the Japan
An analysis of 鰻' competitors in the Japan
Top-5 brands that brand's customers also visit
In Cafés & Restaurants
·Jul – Sep 25
鰻 is ahead of most brands
Sample of brands in the same percentile
Cafés & Restaurants
Market performance percentile shows brand's share of foot traffic, revealing its competitive strength and customer preference.
鰻's market performance is at the 56th percentile, indicating an average/above average market standing. This means 鰻 captures more customer foot traffic than 56% of its peers. Performance peers in the same percentile range include Yakiniku Restaurant Ohno– Shinsekai, KUROFUNE, 焼肉はぐれ雲なんば, Umeda Stand, THE R.C. ARMS, and 炭火海鲜串烧居酒屋 Tottotto 难波千日前店.
Customer satisfaction (CSAT) reflects customer happiness, impacting loyalty, brand reputation, and revenue growth.
鰻's overall CSAT is 80%, a 2.3 percentage point increase year-over-year, indicating improved customer happiness. Fukuoka and Shizuoka Prefectures show the highest CSAT at 89%. The CSAT has generally increased from June to August 2025.
Average check reveals customer spending habits, crucial for pricing strategies and revenue optimization.
The overall average check for 鰻 is 2.7K JPY, a 14.3% increase year-over-year, suggesting customers are spending more per visit. Kanagawa Prefecture has the highest average check at 3.1K JPY. The average check has fluctuated slightly between June and August 2025.
Outlet count indicates brand reach and market presence, influencing accessibility and brand awareness.
鰻 has the most outlets in Osaka Prefecture (9), followed by Hyogo Prefecture (8). Chiba, Kanagawa, and Saitama Prefectures each have 6 outlets. This distribution reflects the brand's strategic focus on specific regions within Japan.
Competitor analysis identifies key rivals, informing strategies to gain market share and customer loyalty.
The top competitors for 鰻, based on cross-visitation, are McDonald's (5.86%), 店 (4.24%), Sushiro (3.84%), Gyoza no Ohsho (3.03%), and Hama Sushi (2.83%). This indicates that customers who visit 鰻 also frequently visit these brands.
Traffic workload analysis reveals peak hours, enabling efficient staffing and resource allocation.
鰻 experiences peak traffic workload between 11:00 and 13:00, with another peak around 17:00-19:00. Minimal traffic occurs during the night and early morning hours. This data helps optimize staffing during peak times.
Understanding consumer segments enables targeted marketing, improving engagement and ROI.
Women are overrepresented among 鰻's consumers (Affinity Index 76), while Men are also overrepresented (Affinity Index 118). Gen X (91) and Gen Y (98) are close to average representation, while Gen Z (62) is underrepresented.