Benchmarking report: US spas earn four times more per site than UK spas

A new global benchmarking study reports a wide revenue gap between mature spa markets: US spas earn four times more per site than spas in the UK.

The finding appears in Trybe’s State of Spa Revenue global benchmarking report, which draws on operational data from 400 spas. While the report does not, in the published summary, detail the underlying drivers behind the disparity, the headline comparison is immediately relevant for owners, GMs, and spa directors who rely on revenue benchmarks to set targets, evaluate operator performance, and justify capital planning.

What the benchmark says—and what it does not

According to Trybe’s benchmarking report, US spas generate four times more revenue per site than UK spas, based on operational data from 400 spas. That single comparison is a blunt instrument, but it is also a useful one: it suggests that “country average” expectations can be structurally different even between markets with established hospitality and wellness sectors.

For international operators and brands with assets in both regions, the headline is a reminder that portfolio comparisons need careful normalization. A UK property measured against a US “per site” expectation may be set up to look like an underperformer even when it is operating within the commercial realities of its market. Conversely, US teams using UK comparables may inadvertently underwrite too conservatively when modeling staffing, facility size, and treatment inventory.

Why the US–UK gap matters to luxury hospitality operators

Even without additional breakdowns, a four-times difference per site has practical implications for how leaders interpret spa P&Ls. Luxury spa performance is often judged through a mix of revenue, departmental profit, guest experience metrics, and the broader resort “halo” effect. Benchmarking can influence everything from therapist headcount to business hours to the size and purpose of wet areas.

In capital meetings, the spa is frequently asked to defend its footprint against competing uses—additional keys, expanded F&B, meeting space, or retail. A benchmark that implies materially higher earning potential in one market than another will shape owner expectations about what “good” looks like, and what a renovation or new-build should be designed to support.

Implications for revenue design: yield, mix, and capacity

The four-times figure also reinforces a core operating reality: spa revenue is not only a function of demand, but of sellable capacity and how that capacity is monetized. “Per site” performance is shaped by how many treatment rooms can be consistently utilized, the balance of treatment vs. facility access, and the revenue mix across services and other spa profit centers.

For US-based operators, the benchmark can be read as validation that high-performing models exist domestically—useful when securing reinvestment for aging treatment rooms, locker rooms, and hydrotherapy areas that may be constraining throughput or guest conversion. For UK-based teams, the gap raises a different question for ownership: whether the current model is designed to capture the revenue that luxury travelers increasingly associate with resort and urban wellness experiences, or whether the asset’s economics are intentionally oriented toward a smaller, experience-first footprint.

For management companies and brand teams, the takeaway is less about chasing a single “right number” and more about agreeing on the operating model a property is built to deliver—then aligning layout, adjacencies, and capacity with that model.

Benchmarking as a planning tool for renovations and new builds

Revenue benchmarks tend to surface most sharply during design decisions. When a spa is remodeled or expanded, teams make irreversible choices about room count, treatment room sizing, wet-area positioning, locker capacity, and whether the facility will act as a destination in its own right.

A cross-market gap as large as the one reported by Trybe can influence feasibility assumptions: what the spa should reasonably earn, how quickly improvements might translate into higher per-site revenue, and what scale of amenity investment the market can sustain. It also impacts conversations about which spaces are “signature” and which are operational necessities that protect revenue—back-of-house circulation, laundry flow, therapist support, and acoustics that preserve the guest experience at higher utilization.

Ultimately, the benchmark strengthens the case for spa leaders to present revenue planning and facility planning as a single conversation. If leadership expects US-like per-site outcomes, the spa’s physical plant and operating infrastructure must be capable of supporting that expectation. If the strategy is to maintain a more boutique UK-style profile, the property should still be able to articulate how the spa drives value—through rate integrity, guest satisfaction, or premium positioning—without leaning on an inapplicable revenue comparison.

What operators should watch next

Trybe’s report adds to a growing body of benchmarking that is increasingly used by owners and asset managers to evaluate spa performance. As more operators share operational data, luxury spas can expect tighter performance scrutiny and more pointed questions about why one market—or one asset—earns materially more “per site” than another.

For teams preparing budgets or a capital request, the immediate opportunity is to ensure that any benchmark cited in board or ownership discussions is paired with clear context about the property’s concept, capacity, and constraints. Benchmarking can be powerful—but only when it is translated into the reality of a specific asset’s design and operating model.

For support with benchmarking interpretation, feasibility framing, or translating performance goals into renovation and equipment planning, use the contact form on this page to reach Spa Team International.