ChowNow Clone App - Commission-Free Restaurant Ordering Platform

It is the same platform at the same price, and we would rather say that plainly than invent a distinction. The two pages are written for different buyers. The UberEats Clone page is for an operator building a public marketplace where commission is the model and reach is the pitch. This page is for an operator selling restaurants a flat monthly fee and a branded ordering channel of their own. Both economics are a setting in the same build, so the choice is a business decision rather than a purchase decision. If you are choosing between the two pages, choose on what you intend to sell. A marketplace sells reach to restaurants and convenience to diners. A commission-free platform sells ownership to restaurants and asks them to bring their own customers. The second is an easier first conversation and a harder second one, and the software supports both.

Yes, and it is a supported mode rather than a workaround. Store economics are stored as a setting: per-order commission, flat subscription packages, or both running side by side across different restaurants. Setting every restaurant onto a plan and taking no percentage is a configuration. The only constraint is a deliberate guard that refuses to disable both models at once, because a restaurant with neither would have undefined economics. The one thing to plan for is that commission-free changes what you must be good at. With no percentage rising alongside a restaurant volume, your revenue grows by signing partners and keeping them rather than by their success, so onboarding throughput and churn become the numbers deciding the business.

You build them. A plan is an object with a name, a price, a billing cycle and a decision about what it unlocks, and you create as many as you want to sell. Billing runs on a scheduler with cron-expression gates reading live settings and overlap locks so a slow cycle never charges twice. Statements show what was charged and when. Proration, trials and dunning ladders are scoped separately, because how you handle a failed charge depends on how you sell. Plan design is worth more thought than it usually gets. What a package unlocks, how many tiers you sell and where the jumps sit will do more for your revenue per restaurant than the headline price does, and because plans are objects you build rather than code, you can restructure them as you learn without a release.

Each restaurant gets an ordering surface that carries its own name, look and menu, and the website is a genuinely indexable storefront of 33 routed pages rather than an app shell behind a login. Whether you ship a separate app per restaurant in the stores, or one platform app that carries each restaurant branding inside it, is a decision we make with you at kickoff: separate store listings per restaurant is additional release management rather than a toggle. The trade-off between one platform app and an app per restaurant is worth thinking through early. Separate listings feel more like the restaurant own brand and cost real release management; a single branded platform app is far cheaper to maintain and still carries each restaurant identity inside it. Most operators start with the second and add the first for flagship partners.

Yes, and this is usually the first requirement a franchise or cloud-kitchen group raises. A brand runs as one account with per-outlet menus, hours, availability and reporting, so head office sees the estate and each outlet sees itself. Monthly plans and per-outlet reporting are exactly the shape groups like this ask for, and retrofitting them into a single-store model afterwards is expensive. Where multi-outlet groups tend to catch platforms out is reporting rather than ordering. Head office wants the estate in one view while each outlet wants only itself, and both want the same numbers to agree. That is a data-model property rather than a dashboard feature, which is why retrofitting it into a single-store design is expensive.

Rewards, wallet balances and coupons run at the diner level across the platform, and campaigns can be funded by you or by an individual restaurant with the split recorded so the payout statement never becomes an argument. On a restaurant own ordering channel this machinery is the whole retention case, because there is no marketplace feed bringing the customer back for you. On a restaurant own channel this machinery is the whole retention case, because there is no marketplace feed bringing the customer back on your behalf. A platform shipping ordering without rewards is asking every restaurant to solve repeat business themselves, which most of them cannot.

No. Delivery is a choice per restaurant: your own riders using the delivery partner application, the restaurant own staff, or collection only. The delivery app ships as 234 Dart files across 17 modules with assignment, navigation, proof of delivery and cash reconciliation against a per-partner ceiling. Connecting an outside courier company instead is an integration we scope rather than something included in the base package. Because delivery is a per-restaurant choice rather than a platform mode, you can sign partners who would never join a marketplace: established brands with their own drivers, collection-only operations, and restaurants in areas your fleet does not reach. That flexibility is often what makes the roster possible at all.

No, and this matters more here than on any other page in this family, because it is the same argument you will make to your restaurants. The source code transfers to you outright at handover and runs on your infrastructure. Plan pricing, commission where you use it, delivery margin and placement rates are all numbers you set, and none of them route a share back to us. This matters more here than on any other page in this family, because it is the same argument you will make to your own restaurants. A platform taking a percentage while selling commission-free software is a difficult position to hold, and it is not one we put you in.

Six working days to a branded platform running on your infrastructure, covering branding, configuration, your domains, payment credentials and the Android builds. It excludes anything scoped as an integration, so POS hardware, outside courier connections, iOS store release and enterprise SSO sit outside it. Larger custom work runs two to eight weeks and is quoted in writing before it starts. What sits outside those six days is anything changing how billing behaves rather than how it is configured, which is why proration, trial periods and dunning ladders are quoted separately. Plan design, pricing, restaurant onboarding and the branding pass are all inside it.

Named plainly rather than implied: publishing to the Apple App Store on your behalf, connecting an outside courier company if you do not run your own riders, two-step login for your admin staff, a dedicated search engine for very large catalogues, POS hardware and printer integrations beyond the built-in till, advanced billing behaviour such as proration and dunning ladders, and warehouse feeds for your own reporting stack. The platform also ships with a test-mode OTP, permissive CORS and no security headers by default, all of which the pre-launch hardening pass closes before you face the public. One inclusion worth naming because it is often assumed to be extra: the built-in till for counter and phone orders is in the base package. For a restaurant deciding whether to run your platform as their only system, having walk-in trade land in the same reports is frequently the deciding factor.