Mako’s compile-v13 normalized Boutique HIIT / Functional Fitness primary-category layer contains 7,874 records: 7,245 US and 629 Canadian. Texas and Florida lead the US layer; Ontario and Alberta lead Canada. Public plans link to 959 category records (12.18%). This is a complete count for the declared layer—not a market-wide pricing census—and the records are not proven current operating venues.
A category record is a canonical venue whose primary compile-v13 label is Boutique HIIT / Functional Fitness Studio. The category covers format-focused studios centered on high-intensity intervals, functional circuits, boot-camp-like classes or closely related small-group models where the source evidence supports that primary classification.
“Boutique” is an editorial operating definition, not a government industry code. The Health & Fitness Association’s studio resources describe boutique programming through formats including HIIT, cross training, cycling, yoga and Pilates. Its FIT Tracker methodology similarly treats boutiques as smaller, modality-focused studio businesses commonly selling packs or unlimited access.
The category does not capture every HIIT or functional class. A similar program inside a big gym, recreation center, personal-training facility or strength gym remains under that venue’s primary category. Each canonical venue contributes once so the total reconciles with the full 14-category universe.
The North American parent report makes that denominator visible and prevents the category count from becoming an all-fitness claim.
Texas has the largest US category count, followed by Florida and New York. Texas and Florida alone contain nearly one quarter of the US category layer.
| US state | Category records | Share of 7,245 US records |
|---|---|---|
| Texas | 984 | 13.58% |
| Florida | 742 | 10.24% |
| New York | 397 | 5.48% |
| California | 365 | 5.04% |
| Georgia | 348 | 4.80% |
| Illinois | 308 | 4.25% |
| North Carolina | 252 | 3.48% |
| New Jersey | 240 | 3.31% |
| Virginia | 240 | 3.31% |
| Ohio | 212 | 2.93% |
These counts do not establish demand, density or studio performance. Texas can lead the normalized record count without implying the highest per-capita concentration or strongest unit economics. Population and commercial comparisons require separate, date-matched denominators.
The distribution is a starting point for local research. State or metro prioritization should add current first-party checks and a dated population or commercial denominator rather than treating record concentration as market opportunity.
Ontario leads the Canadian category, followed by Alberta and Quebec. The top three provinces contain 439 of 629 Canadian records.
| Province | Category records | Share of 629 Canadian records |
|---|---|---|
| Ontario | 229 | 36.41% |
| Alberta | 107 | 17.01% |
| Quebec | 103 | 16.38% |
| British Columbia | 81 | 12.88% |
| Nova Scotia | 28 | 4.45% |
| Saskatchewan | 25 | 3.97% |
| New Brunswick | 21 | 3.34% |
| Newfoundland and Labrador | 15 | 2.38% |
| Manitoba | 13 | 2.07% |
| Prince Edward Island | 4 | 0.64% |
The ranking describes the normalized Canadian source universe. It does not prove equivalent source depth between provinces, and it should not be compared directly with the US layer as a physical-market share. Quebec examples also require bilingual first-party checks before publication.
The category has recorded websites for 7,209 of 7,874 records (91.55%), and public plans link to 959 records (12.18%). These are field-presence and captured-plan measures, not current-status or market-transparency guarantees.
| Public or workflow field | Records with field | Coverage of 7,874 records |
|---|---|---|
| Public website | 7,209 | 91.55% |
| Public phone | 6,994 | 88.82% |
| Verified-row flag | 972 | 12.34% |
| Category records linked to public plans | 959 | 12.18% |
| Evidence URL | 7,874 | 100.00% |
Field presence is not a current-status guarantee. An evidence URL can document a first-party page, official source, directory or discovery record without proving that every offer, owner or location fact remains current.
The review-row flag appears on 91.80% of category records. Because verified records can still carry review reasons, the review share must not be restated as an unverified share.
This category has captured public plans for 959 category records and 2,866 plan rows, equal to 12.18% of the category. The data establishes captured pricing visibility, not why coverage is higher or a market-wide transparency rate.
The observed rate reflects both what operators publish and which source packets contained plan extraction. The dataset cannot separate operator transparency from research architecture without a new controlled capture study.
This distinction matters: compile-v13 cannot prove that HIIT studios publish prices more often than yoga or Pilates studios across the real market.
The pricing subset contains 2,866 plan rows, but the raw ledger mixes currencies, product types and missing values; it supports offer-structure inspection, not one unadjusted category price.
| Currency layer | Plan rows | Numeric-price rows | Positive-price rows | Raw median positive listed price |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAD | 1,354 | 1,300 | 1,212 | C$85.00 |
| USD | 1,022 | 172 | 172 | US$49.50 |
| Blank currency or price | 490 | — | — | — |
The USD layer illustrates why row counts and numeric-price counts must both be published: 1,022 rows carry USD context, but only 172 contain numeric prices. The remaining rows are not zero-dollar offers.
The raw plan labels include Published official membership offer, Other, Published official offer, Class pack, Intro offer, Drop-in, Published plan and Membership. A US$49.50 drop-in or intro product cannot be compared with a C$85 recurring plan by reading the two medians as category prices.
The fitness studio pricing report will normalize currency, plan type, billing frequency, included classes or credits, commitment, expiry, fees and introductory conditions before interpreting price distributions.
Operators can use the map to understand category visibility, geographic concentration and how often public offers were captured. They cannot use it to infer members, revenue, visit frequency or retention.
First, the category is geographically meaningful. Nearly three in ten US records sit in Texas, Florida and New York, but the remaining layer is distributed across many states. Local competitive research should therefore use state and metro views rather than a single national benchmark.
Second, public visibility is strong relative to the wider universe. More than nine in ten category records have a website, and more than one in ten link to plans. That supports structured offer research, but the public subset may overrepresent businesses with better digital merchandising.
Third, an offer does not reveal member health. The plan can show what access costs and how it is packaged. It cannot show who attends on schedule, who has drifted or which intro customers convert. The gym-management software guide covers operating-system choices; Mako Pulse begins with customer-level attendance and membership data.
The normalized search universe contains 7,874 category records: 7,245 in the United States and 629 in Canada. The count is complete for the declared compile-v13 category, not an official census of every operating HIIT or functional fitness studio.
Texas has 984 records, Florida 742 and New York 397. Together they contain 2,123, or 29.30% of the US category. The ranking is not adjusted for population and does not measure demand, membership or studio performance.
Ontario has 229 records, Alberta 107 and Quebec 103. Together they account for 69.79% of the Canadian category. The result describes the normalized source universe and is not a physical-market share.
Not when the venue’s primary category is Gym / Health Club, Multipurpose Recreation / Sports Center or another label. The primary-category rule keeps the denominator mutually exhaustive but does not count every place where HIIT programming is available.
This report does not publish one. The pricing subset mixes memberships, packs, drop-ins, intro offers and missing numeric prices across CAD and USD. Product type, quantity, billing period, terms, fees and currency must be normalized before comparison.
Not by itself. It measures captured plan links in compile-v13. The rate can reflect both what operators publish and what the registered source packets collected. A controlled, current capture study would be needed to isolate market-wide transparency.
A format map can show where HIIT and functional fitness studios and offers are visible. It cannot show which members have fallen behind their usual attendance cadence.
Mako Pulse surfaces descriptive, rules-based retention signals for operator review. Open Pulse for free to examine that customer-level layer.
