Free tool · runs in your browser · nothing stored
The branch budget splitter
Enter your estate and your monthly budget. The splitter holds back a testing reserve, applies a minimum viable floor per location, gives priority branches a 1.5× weighting, and returns a table you can defend in the budget meeting. It never leaves your browser and never asks for your email.
Your estate
Defaults reflect what we stage for new client estates before ledger data replaces assumptions.
The split
| Line | Monthly (€) | Note |
|---|
How the split is computed
The method is deliberately simple enough to check by hand. The testing reserve comes off the top. The remainder divides across locations by weight: standard branches carry a weight of 1, priority branches 1.5. If any branch lands under the floor, the tool says so plainly rather than quietly funding everything badly, because the most common multi-location budgeting failure we see is spreading a fixed budget across too many branches for any of them to work.
What the tool can't know is which branches deserve priority, and that is the argument worth having. In client work the answer comes from the branch ledger: cost per lead by location, capacity, and revenue per booking decide the weights, and the split gets re-argued quarterly with data. The multi-location guide walks the full method, and the engagement diaries show it running against real estates.
Asked about the splitter
Why hold back a testing reserve at all?
Because a budget split to the last euro has no room to learn. The reserve, 10% by default, funds one deliberate experiment a month: a geo test on a quiet branch, a Local Services Ads trial, a landing page variant. Estates that spend 100% on business-as-usual keep their current performance forever, which is rarely the plan.
Where does the per-location floor come from?
Google's systems need conversion volume to optimize, and a branch drip-fed €80 a month will never produce it. Our default floor of €500 per location is the practical minimum we see for search campaigns to exit the learning phase in a reasonable month. If the floor forces hard choices, that's the tool working: fund fewer branches properly rather than all of them homeopathically.
Should every branch really get an equal share?
No, and the tool deliberately starts equal so the argument happens in the open. Equal split is the honest baseline; weighting should then follow evidence, like branch revenue, capacity, or cost-per-lead history. Mark your priority branches in the tool and they draw a 1.5 times share, which mirrors how we stage budgets for clients before ledger data replaces guesswork.
Want the weights argued from data?
The free audit returns your actual per-location table in four working days, and the split writes itself.
Request your free audit