Mako’s declared normalized Ontario search universe contains 3,788 venue records, with Toronto, Ottawa and Mississauga having the largest municipality-field counts. Five class-based formats contain 700 records. The public-plan overlay is selective: 1,340 rows link to 293 venues. This is a closed analytical layer, not a census of every current physical venue.
The Ontario total includes every canonical record assigned to the province in the Mako compile-v13 normalized search universe. Each record contributes once to Ontario and once to one of 14 primary reporting categories.
“Mapped” describes a closed analytical dataset. It does not mean an official body has established that all 3,788 records are currently operating, publicly accessible physical venues, or that every operating Ontario venue is present. The Canadian layer combines compiled, official, municipal, provincial and other evidence families with different field structures and verification depth.
The Canadian parent report applies the same identity and category rules across every province and territory. The North American report explains why search-universe completeness must remain separate from official establishment counts and real-world market completeness.
Gyms and health clubs lead the Ontario layer with 1,002 records, followed by martial arts schools with 814. Dance and movement, multipurpose recreation, specialist facilities and Pilates/reformer/barre each form visible parts of the provincial mix.
| Normalized category | Ontario records | Share of 3,788 |
|---|---|---|
| Gym / Health Club | 1,002 | 26.45% |
| Martial Arts / Combat School | 814 | 21.49% |
| Dance / Movement Studio | 385 | 10.16% |
| Multipurpose Recreation / Sports Center | 379 | 10.01% |
| Specialist Fitness Facility | 334 | 8.82% |
| Pilates / Reformer / Barre Studio | 303 | 8.00% |
| Boutique HIIT / Functional Fitness Studio | 229 | 6.05% |
| CrossFit / Strength Gym | 159 | 4.20% |
| Aquatic / Swim Facility | 96 | 2.53% |
| Personal / Small-Group Training | 78 | 2.06% |
| Yoga Studio | 9 | 0.24% |
| Gymnastics / Cheer / Tumbling Facility | 0 | 0.00% |
| Indoor Cycling Studio | 0 | 0.00% |
| Climbing / Bouldering Facility | 0 | 0.00% |
| Total | 3,788 | 100.00% |
Yoga, Pilates/reformer/barre, CrossFit/strength, boutique HIIT/functional fitness and indoor cycling form the series’ five-format class-based core. Their 700 records represent 18.48% of Ontario.
The very low yoga count and zeroes in three categories must be interpreted as source-and-normalization outcomes, not proof that those formats are absent from Ontario. A venue can also offer programs outside its assigned primary category. The table is exhaustive for the declared dataset, but the category-specific discovery depth is not independently proven equal.
Category shares measure records, not revenue, memberships, room capacity, public funding or visits. Multipurpose recreation facilities, for example, may operate very differently from single-format studios even though each location contributes one record.
Toronto has the largest named municipality count, followed by Ottawa and Mississauga. The table shows named municipalities while using all 3,788 Ontario records as the share denominator.
| Named municipality | Venue records | Share of 3,788 Ontario records |
|---|---|---|
| Toronto | 890 | 23.50% |
| Ottawa | 357 | 9.42% |
| Mississauga | 302 | 7.97% |
| Burlington | 120 | 3.17% |
| North Bay | 82 | 2.16% |
| Brampton | 74 | 1.95% |
| London | 69 | 1.82% |
| Sault Ste. Marie | 62 | 1.64% |
| Nepean | 60 | 1.58% |
| Hamilton | 55 | 1.45% |
The ten named municipalities contain 2,071 records, or 54.67% of the provincial layer. Another 113 records use Unspecified Ontario, a source-normalization bucket rather than a real municipality. It is included in the 3,788-record denominator but excluded from the named-municipality ranking.
These are municipality-field counts, not census metropolitan area totals. Toronto municipality records cannot be divided by a Toronto CMA population, and Ottawa and Nepean should not be recombined selectively without one consistent geographic crosswalk.
A density analysis should assign every record to an official census metropolitan area or census agglomeration and use one dated population vintage. Statistics Canada defines those statistical areas separately from municipal boundaries in its CMA and CA reference definition. This report makes no municipality-density claim.
Ontario has complete city-field and evidence-URL coverage, but other public fields are uneven. In particular, coordinate coverage is only 9.66% and postal coverage is 38.52%.
| Public or workflow field | Ontario records with field | Coverage of 3,788 |
|---|---|---|
| City field, including placeholder bucket | 3,788 | 100.00% |
| Street address | 2,577 | 68.03% |
| Public website | 1,749 | 46.17% |
| Public phone | 1,628 | 42.98% |
| Postal code | 1,459 | 38.52% |
| Verified-row flag | 1,423 | 37.57% |
| Coordinates | 366 | 9.66% |
| Public generic email | 259 | 6.84% |
| Meaningful ownership field | 0 | 0.00% |
Every Ontario record retains an evidence URL. Evidence coverage is provenance coverage, not a guarantee of current operation or first-party confirmation.
The coverage profile also reflects source architecture. It should not be turned into a claim that Ontario operators are less digital than operators elsewhere. Canadian provincial sources capture different fields at different rates, so cross-border field comparisons can describe this dataset but cannot automatically describe venue behaviour.
Verified and review flags are workflow fields. They sum to the total in Ontario, but the wider workbook permits overlap and their meanings are not interchangeable with open, closed, accurate or inaccurate.
Ontario’s public-plan overlay contains 1,340 plan rows linked to 293 venues, or 7.73% of Ontario records. Numeric amounts appear on 1,329 rows, and 282 of the 293 plan-linked venues have at least one numeric row.
The raw offer layer contains 768 rows labelled Other, 185 class-pack rows, 151 intro-offer rows, 119 drop-in rows and 117 membership rows. Those labels are not a single clean taxonomy, so the broad plan-type distribution should not be read as market share.
Two narrower slices support more defensible descriptive summaries:
| Explicit like-for-like slice | Numeric observations | Recorded range | Median |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly cadence | 262 of 268 rows | CAD$9.99–CAD$345 | CAD$29.99 |
| One-time or per-class drop-in | 119 rows | CAD$20–CAD$220 | CAD$35 |
These are medians of captured public-plan observations, not estimates for every Ontario venue. They do not incorporate a random sampling design, and the monthly slice may still mix access scope, commitment, fees and inclusions.
Introductory offers require their own treatment. The overlay contains 53 explicit zero/free intro rows and 98 positive numeric intro rows. A true zero is an observed offer amount; it must not be merged with missing prices. Mixed-unit class packs are not collapsed into a per-class number unless quantity and terms support that normalization.
The fitness studio pricing report explains the broader currency, cadence, product-type and missing-data rules.
Ontario operators can use the map to understand the normalized provincial landscape and identify where a deeper local study is warranted. Toronto, Ottawa and Mississauga make up 40.89% of all provincial records by municipality-field count, but this is not a density, revenue or market-share claim.
The category mix also argues against one generic studio benchmark. A municipal recreation centre, martial arts school, Pilates studio and HIIT venue can have different capacity constraints, visit patterns, commitment terms and pricing units. Local comparison should start with a consistent format and trade area.
The pricing overlay supports carefully defined offer comparisons, yet it remains selective. Venue-level coverage is 7.73% of Ontario records, and even explicit monthly plans can differ in inclusions and fees. Operators should compare the full commercial offer rather than a headline amount alone.
Most importantly, a market map cannot reveal customer-level retention. The gym-management software guide covers operating-system choices. Mako Pulse uses a venue’s own attendance and membership data to surface descriptive retention signals for review.
The normalized Mako Ontario layer contains 3,788 canonical venue records. It is complete for the declared compile-v13 dataset, not an official census of every currently operating physical venue in Ontario.
Toronto has 890 records, Ottawa 357 and Mississauga 302. These are municipality-field counts using all 3,788 Ontario records as the denominator, not CMA totals or density rankings.
Gym / Health Club leads with 1,002 records, followed by Martial Arts / Combat School with 814, Dance / Movement Studio with 385 and Multipurpose Recreation / Sports Center with 379.
The counts reflect the source and primary-category rules of the normalized dataset. A low or zero count does not prove that a format is absent from the real Ontario market or from programs inside mixed-format venues.
Among explicit like-for-like observations, 262 numeric monthly rows have a CAD$29.99 median and 119 one-time or per-class drop-in rows have a CAD$35 median. These are captured-plan medians, not province-wide estimates.
It is complete only for the closed normalized Mako search universe. No official agency or independent audit has proven that it contains every operating physical venue in Ontario.
An Ontario map can show where normalized records and categories concentrate. It cannot show which members inside one venue have stopped attending on their normal cadence.
Mako Pulse surfaces descriptive, rules-based retention signals for operator review. Open Pulse for free to examine that customer-level layer.
