68.8 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Dallas, Texas
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Dallas, Texas. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Route and curb productivity pressure was a leading operating constraint.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
23Sources used
16Primary sources
44Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
1.3 points average among 11 affected concepts
0.8 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 11 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Dallas, Texas
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, and FASTSIGNS produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Local business demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 10 exposed concepts, adding 1.2 points on average. Route and curb productivity pressure was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.8 points on average. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 73.4Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +3.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 72.3Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 72.1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 72.1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.2 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 69.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.8 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 69.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.4 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 68.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.2 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Dallas, Texas
Large resident, household, employer-firm, and sector-receipts base supports broad local business demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 1.2 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Employer firms in reference year 2022: 28,879 employer firms. [3]
Recurring metropolitan congestion and active corridor projects constrain predictable multi-stop routing
This relationship affected 14 concepts and reduced 0.8 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Major current Dallas-area highway projects include multiple corridors with construction timelines extending from 2026 through 2032: project: I-30 Canyon: I-35E to I-45, timeline: 2026-2031, cost usd: 888,000,000, project: I-30 East: Bass Pro to FM 2642, timeline: 2021-2027, cost usd: 804,000,000, project: I-35E: I-635 to Denton County Line, timeline: 2022-2027, cost usd: 709,000,000, project: I-635 LBJ East: US 75 to I-30, timeline: 2020-2026, cost usd: 1,740,000,000, project: US 80 at I-635 interchange, timeline: 2025-2029, cost usd: 545,000,000 project list. [8] [7]
asset-light-b2b
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was target-market demand, while the main constraint was transportation, routing, and parking. [4] [3] [7] [8] [15] [14]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large resident, household, employer-firm, and sector-receipts base supports broad local business demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Mapped Dallas County Vertisol soil series can create property-specific shrink-swell and drainage-related building exposure1 modeled effect
Moisture and foundation service demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Recurring metropolitan congestion and active corridor projects constrain predictable multi-stop routing1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
Large institutional and municipal account channels support referrals but can require formal registration, eligibility, and procurement steps3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- DRIVE applies when applicable to competitively solicited City contracts over USD 100,000 and sets category-specific SBE participation goals from 30 to 38 percent: contract threshold usd more than: 100,000; sbe goal percent range: 30, 38; applicable solicitations after: 2026-03-01 policy thresholds [22]
- UT Southwestern institutional scale: employees more than: 25,000; operating budget usd: 6,500,000,000; hospitalized patients annual more than: 143,000; emergency cases annual more than: 470,000; outpatient visits annual approximate: 5,300,000 institutional metrics [14]
- UT Southwestern reports 15.5 million square feet of facilities and more than 4,000 learners trained annually: facilities square feet: 15,500,000; learners annual more than: 4,000 facility and learner metrics [15]
Professional and institutional relationship densityReferral ecosystem
Institutional procurement-cycle frictionSales and customer acquisition
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment73.4
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +3.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +3.5 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +3.40 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +3.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 73.40 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +3.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.3
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +2.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.9 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +2.34 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.34 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#6
#3Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.1
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +2.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.6 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.07 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.07 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#7
#4Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.1
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +2.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.1 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.06 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.06 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#4
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.2
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.7 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.25 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.5 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.25 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#5
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.11 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.89 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#9
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.2 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.16 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.84 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#14
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.8 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.8 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.61 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.8 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.39 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#10
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.0
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.4 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.97 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.03 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#11
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.9
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.2 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.2 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Moisture and foundation service demand EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -1.07 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.93 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#11
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.8
Mister Sparky Electric
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.2 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.16 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.84 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.8
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.6 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.22 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.78 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.7
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.8 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.8 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Referral ecosystem | Professional and institutional relationship density EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -1.29 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.8 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.71 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.6
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.4 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem | Professional and institutional relationship density EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -1.40 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.60 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +3.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 73.40 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectPositive local support
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 11 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #2 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted11 of 14
Average among affected+1.3 pts
Average across all concepts+1.0 pts
Concepts changing rank11
What we observed
- Resident Population Estimate On July 1, 20251,329,491 people
- Employer Firms In Reference Year 202228,879 employer firms
- Health Care And Social Assistance Receipts In 202225,723,819,000 usd
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+3.5 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+2.9 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+2.6 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+2.1 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.7 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Transportation, routing, and parking
We recalculated route-dependent models after accounting for travel corridors, parking, and the number of productive stops they require.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 9 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #13 to #6, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-0.8 pts
Average across all concepts-0.8 pts
Concepts changing rank9
What we observed
- Major Current Dallas Area Highway Projects Include Multiple Corridors With Construction Timelines Extending From 2026 Through 2032project: I-30 Canyon: I-35E to I-45, timeline: 2026-2031, cost usd: 888,000,000, project: I-30 East: Bass Pro to FM 2642, timeline: 2021-2027, cost usd: 804,000,000, project: I-35E: I-635 to Denton County Line, timeline: 2022-2027, cost usd: 709,000,000, project: I-635 LBJ East: US 75 to I-30, timeline: 2020-2026, cost usd: 1,740,000,000, project: US 80 at I-635 interchange, timeline: 2025-2029, cost usd: 545,000,000 project list
- Annual Extra Travel Time Per Auto Commuter In 202469 hours per commuter per year
- Travel Time Index In 20241.31 index
Concepts challenged most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.8 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-1.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-1.4 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-1.4 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.2 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Property replacement-cycle demandNo material score adjustment
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Labor and staffing frictionNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Referral ecosystemNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideStable · tested #1–#2
#2 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#6
#3 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #3–#7
#4 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #1–#4
#5 HomeSmilesStable · tested #5–#5
#6 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #4–#9
#7 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #3–#14
#8 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsModerately sensitive · tested #8–#10
#9 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #7–#11
#10 Rainbow International RestorationStable · tested #10–#11
#11 Mister Sparky ElectricModerately sensitive · tested #9–#12
#12 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13
#13 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #6–#14
#14 PuroCleanModerately sensitive · tested #12–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [3] [4] [14] [15] [13] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [4] [10] [11] [19] [1]Competitive environment: [3] [12] [13] [1] [2]Labor and staffing friction: [5] [6] [2] [14]Transportation, routing, and parking: [7] [8] [9] [3] [1] [2]Real estate and site feasibility: [12] [13] [16] [17] [18] [19] [21] [10] [11] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [3] [14] [22] [23] [13]Referral ecosystem: [14] [15] [22] [23] [3]Territory quality: [3] [4] [7] [8] [12] [13] [10] [11] [17] [18]Regulatory and operating friction: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [2]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Transportation, routing, and parking |
|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +3.5 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #2 Jan-Pro International | +2.9 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +2.6 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #4 ActionCOACH | +2.1 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +1.7 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #6 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #7 Workout Anytime | — | -0.2 pts |
| #8 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.2 pts | -0.8 pts |
| #9 Aire Serv | +0.4 pts | -1.4 pts |
| #10 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.1 pts | -1.2 pts |
| #11 Mister Sparky Electric | — | -1.2 pts |
| #12 Mr. Rooter | +0.4 pts | -1.6 pts |
| #13 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.5 pts | -1.8 pts |
| #14 PuroClean | — | -1.4 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, FASTSIGNS led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to transportation, routing, and parking. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for Jan-Pro International, FASTSIGNS, Tiger Adjusters; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Dallas, Texas
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
68.8Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Dallas, Texas
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 68.6 to 68.9. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 68.9. Target-market demand added 0.1 points on average among the affected concepts. Transportation, routing, and parking reduced the exposed concepts by 1.3 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.3-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 68.6–68.9
- Category average
- 68.8
Rainbow International Restoration68.9
PuroClean68.6
Metric registry
The 44 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 1,329,491people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business and receipts data | Dallas, Texas | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 1.9percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business and receipts data | Dallas, Texas | Context only | [3] |
| Employer firms in reference year 2022 | 28,879employer firms | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business and receipts data | Dallas, Texas | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts in 2022 | 25,723,819,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business and receipts data | Dallas, Texas | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Transportation and warehousing receipts in 2022 | 13,855,858,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business and receipts data | Dallas, Texas | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Total retail sales in 2022 | 31,866,501,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business and receipts data | Dallas, Texas | Context only | [3] |
| Land area in 2020 | 339.58square miles | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business and receipts data | Dallas, Texas | Supports research conclusion | [3] |
| Population density in 2020 | 3,841.1people per square mile | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business and receipts data | Dallas, Texas | Context only | [3] |
| Total housing units in the 2024 ACS 1-year profile | 599,962housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates and 2020 Census geography | Dallas, Texas | Context only | [4] |
| Total households in the 2024 ACS 1-year profile | 537,317households | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates and 2020 Census geography | Dallas, Texas | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate | 42.4percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business and receipts data | Dallas, Texas | Context only | [3] |
| Mean travel time to work for workers age 16 and over | 25.7minutes | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business and receipts data | Dallas, Texas | Context only | [3] |
| The Seagoville series has high shrink-swell potential and develops dry cracks from one-half inch to more than three inches wide extending below 12 inches | shrink swell potential: high; dry crack width inches min: 0.5; dry crack width inches maximum stated more than: 3; crack depth inches minimum: 12soil series characteristics | Official soil-series description; accessed July 2026 | Seagoville series, Dallas County type location and mapped North Central Texas occurrences | Conditional relationship | [10] |
| The upper Seagoville soil profile is very slowly permeable | very slow upper profilepermeability class | Official soil-series description; accessed July 2026 | Seagoville series occurrences | Conditional relationship | [10] |
| The Dalco series is clayey, very slowly permeable, and has dry cracks and slickensides that identify Vertisol behavior | texture: silty clay or clay; permeability: very slow; dry cracks: yes; slickensides: yessoil series characteristics | Official soil-series description; accessed July 2026 | Dalco series, Dallas County type location and Blackland Prairie distribution | Conditional relationship | [11] |
| Mean hourly wage for all occupations in May 2024 | 32.89usd per hour | May 2024 | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas MSA | Context only | [5] |
| Selected major occupational-group mean hourly wages compared with U.S. averages | food preparation and serving dallas: 15.69; food preparation and serving us: 17.32; building and grounds dallas: 17.48; building and grounds us: 19.01; construction and extraction dallas: 26.49; construction and extraction us: 30.73; installation maintenance repair dallas: 28.97; installation maintenance repair us: 29.63; additional values omittedusd per hour | May 2024 | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas MSA | Context only | [5] |
| Transportation and material moving occupations accounted for 10.2 percent of area employment versus 8.9 percent nationally | dallas share: 10.2; us share: 8.9percent of employment | May 2024 | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas MSA | Context only | [5] |
| Private-industry wages and salaries increased 1.8 percent over the 12 months ending March 2026, versus 3.4 percent nationally | dallas: 1.8; united states: 3.4percent change | 12 months ending March 2026 | Dallas-Fort Worth compensation locality | Context only | [6] |
| Private-industry total compensation increased 2.3 percent over the 12 months ending March 2026, versus 3.4 percent nationally | dallas: 2.3; united states: 3.4percent change | 12 months ending March 2026 | Dallas-Fort Worth compensation locality | Context only | [6] |
| Annual extra travel time per auto commuter in 2024 | 69hours per commuter per year | 2024 and 2023 traffic conditions | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington urban area | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Travel Time Index in 2024 | 1.31index | 2024 and 2023 traffic conditions | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington urban area | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Total annual travel delay in 2024 | 231,316,000person hours | 2024 and 2023 traffic conditions | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington urban area | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Truck congestion delay and estimated cost in 2024 | delay hours: 14,118,000; estimated cost usd: 1,048,000,000hours and usd | 2024 and 2023 traffic conditions | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington urban area | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Major current Dallas-area highway projects include multiple corridors with construction timelines extending from 2026 through 2032 | project: I-30 Canyon: I-35E to I-45, timeline: 2026-2031, cost usd: 888,000,000, project: I-30 East: Bass Pro to FM 2642, timeline: 2021-2027, cost usd: 804,000,000, project: I-35E: I-635 to Denton County Line, timeline: 2022-2027, cost usd: 709,000,000, project: I-635 LBJ East: US 75 to I-30, timeline: 2020-2026, cost usd: 1,740,000,000, project: US 80 at I-635 interchange, timeline: 2025-2029, cost usd: 545,000,000project list | Active project timelines displayed July 2026 | Dallas and Dallas-area highway corridors | Used in scoring | [8] |
| DART Silver Line passenger service launched on October 25, 2025 | start date: 2025-10-25; route miles: 26; cities connected: 7; peak frequency minutes: 30; off peak frequency minutes: 60service status | Passenger service beginning October 25, 2025 | Seven North Texas cities and DFW International Airport | Context only | [9] |
| Overall Dallas-Fort Worth industrial vacancy in Q2 2026 | 8.1percent | Second quarter 2026 | Dallas-Fort Worth industrial market | Conditional relationship | [12] |
| Industrial space under construction in Q2 2026 | 29.8million square feet | Second quarter 2026 | Dallas-Fort Worth industrial market | Conditional relationship | [12] |
| Mid-size industrial buildings of 150,000 to 499,999 square feet were the only size segment with vacancy above 10 percent, while big-box vacancy tightened | mid size range sqft: 150,000, 499,999; mid size vacancy above percent: 10; big box threshold sqft: 500,000; big box condition: tightened to lowest since 2022size segment condition | Second quarter 2026 | Dallas-Fort Worth industrial market | Conditional relationship | [12] |
| Average Dallas-Fort Worth industrial asking rent in Q2 2026 | 9.19usd net per square foot per year | Second quarter 2026 | Dallas-Fort Worth industrial market | Context only | [12] |
| Dallas-Fort Worth office vacancy, asking rent, and quarterly net absorption in Q2 2026 | vacancy percent: 23.9; asking rent usd per sqft per year: 34.17; net absorption million sqft: 1.1market metrics | Second quarter 2026 | Dallas-Fort Worth office market | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| Office absorption and rent growth varied materially among named Dallas-Fort Worth submarkets | top absorption submarkets: Legacy/Frisco, Las Colinas, Uptown/Turtle Creek; strongest property level rent growth submarkets: Preston Center, Far North Dallas, Uptown/Turtle Creeknamed submarket pattern | Second quarter 2026 | Dallas-Fort Worth office submarkets | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| UT Southwestern institutional scale | employees more than: 25,000; operating budget usd: 6,500,000,000; hospitalized patients annual more than: 143,000; emergency cases annual more than: 470,000; outpatient visits annual approximate: 5,300,000institutional metrics | Current institutional facts accessed July 2026 | UT Southwestern Medical Center and affiliated care network | Used in scoring | [14] |
| UT Southwestern reports 15.5 million square feet of facilities and more than 4,000 learners trained annually | facilities square feet: 15,500,000; learners annual more than: 4,000facility and learner metrics | Current campus facts accessed July 2026 | UT Southwestern campus and regional medical centers | Used in scoring | [15] |
| Dallas sign permits are required when a sign exceeds 20 square feet, exceeds eight feet in height, is illuminated or electrical, occupies or overhangs a public roadway, or is in a Special Provision Sign District | effective area sqft more than: 20; height feet more than: 8; illumination or electrical: yes; public roadway location: yes; special provision sign district: yespermit triggers | Current sign-permit requirements and fees accessed July 2026 | City of Dallas | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| Premise attached-sign and sign-reface permit fees are USD 296; new premise detached-sign permits are USD 577 | attached or reface usd: 296; new detached usd: 577usd | Current sign-permit requirements and fees accessed July 2026 | City of Dallas | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| All signs in a Special Provision Sign District require a Certificate of Appropriateness, an additional two-to-three-month review process, at least two public meetings, and a USD 397 review fee | certificate of appropriateness required: yes; review months range: 2, 3; public meetings minimum: 2; review fee usd: 397review requirements | Current process and 2025-2026 calendar accessed July 2026 | Dallas Special Provision Sign Districts | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| Exterior work on Dallas landmarks or structures and lots in Landmark Districts requires a Certificate of Appropriateness before work begins | certificate of appropriateness required: yes; minor review: staff; substantial review: Landmark Commissionreview requirements | Current process accessed July 2026 | City of Dallas landmarks and Landmark Districts | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| Commercial new construction, additions, and first-time finish-outs filed on or after May 12, 2023 require a signed energy-compliance path with the building permit; remodels require a compliance certificate at project completion | new addition first finish out path form: yes; remodel completion certificate: yes; energy approval before final inspection: yesproject compliance requirements | Requirements for permit applications filed on or after May 12, 2023; accessed July 2026 | Commercial projects in the City of Dallas | Conditional relationship | [19] |
| Effective June 1, 2026, plumbing and mechanical rough inspections and final inspections must be scheduled together | effective date: 2026-06-01; rough combined: yes; final combined: yesinspection scheduling rule | Inspection scheduling rule effective June 1, 2026 | Commercial, residential, and multifamily projects in Dallas | Conditional relationship | [20] |
| The optional Q-Team expedited review charges a USD 1,000 hourly plan-review fee plus size-based intake and maximum fees | hourly plan review fee usd: 1,000; intake fee usd range: 500, 1,250; maximum fee usd range: 10,000, 50,000; revision review goal business days: 10optional review fee structure | Current optional expedited-review service accessed July 2026 | Qualifying Dallas projects choosing Q-Team review | Conditional relationship | [21] |
| DRIVE applies when applicable to competitively solicited City contracts over USD 100,000 and sets category-specific SBE participation goals from 30 to 38 percent | contract threshold usd more than: 100,000; sbe goal percent range: 30, 38; applicable solicitations after: 2026-03-01policy thresholds | Policy effective in 2026; applicable solicitations issued after March 1, 2026 | City of Dallas procurement | Supports modeled relationship | [22] |
| SBE participation credit under DRIVE requires qualifying size, DFW-area principal office, independent ownership, a commercially useful function, and recognized certification | sba size standard: yes; dfw principal office: yes; independent ownership: yes; commercially useful function: yes; recognized certification for credit: yeseligibility conditions | Policy effective in 2026; applicable solicitations issued after March 1, 2026 | City of Dallas procurement | Supports modeled relationship | [22] |
| City procurement vendors register in Bonfire and select relevant commodity codes to receive and search matching opportunities | platform: Bonfire; commodity codes required for profile: yesprocess steps | Current registration workflow accessed July 2026 | City of Dallas procurement | Supports modeled relationship | [23] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects that apply without an unresolved site, territory, customer, or project gate.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 73.40 after target-market demand +3.5 pts and transportation, routing, and parking -0.1 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Franchise Opportunities in Tier-1 U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Structural Constraints and Hidden Municipal Costs: A Forensic Audit of Ten U.S. JurisdictionsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3QuickFacts: Dallas city, Texas
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Employer firms in reference year 2022, Health care and social assistance receipts in 2022, and Transportation and warehousing receipts in 2022
- 4Dallas city, Texas - Census Bureau Profile
Used for: Total housing units in the 2024 ACS 1-year profile and Total households in the 2024 ACS 1-year profile
- 5Occupational Employment and Wages in Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington — May 2024
Used for: Mean hourly wage for all occupations in May 2024, Selected major occupational-group mean hourly wages compared with U.S. averages, and Transportation and material moving occupations accounted for 10.2 percent of area employment versus 8.9 percent nationally
- 6Changing Compensation Costs in the Dallas Metropolitan Area — March 2026
Used for: Private-industry wages and salaries increased 1.8 percent over the 12 months ending March 2026, versus 3.4 percent nationally and Private-industry total compensation increased 2.3 percent over the 12 months ending March 2026, versus 3.4 percent nationally
- 72025 Urban Mobility Report
Used for: Annual extra travel time per auto commuter in 2024, Travel Time Index in 2024, Total annual travel delay in 2024, and Truck congestion delay and estimated cost in 2024
- 8Texas Clear Lanes: Dallas Current Projects
Used for: Major current Dallas-area highway projects include multiple corridors with construction timelines extending from 2026 through 2032
- 9Silver Line Launches Oct. 25, Connecting Seven Cities and DFW Airport with Modern, Reliable Transit
Used for: DART Silver Line passenger service launched on October 25, 2025
- 10Official Series Description: Seagoville Series
Used for: The Seagoville series has high shrink-swell potential and develops dry cracks from one-half inch to more than three inches wide extending below 12 inches and The upper Seagoville soil profile is very slowly permeable
- 11Official Series Description: Dalco Series
Used for: The Dalco series is clayey, very slowly permeable, and has dry cracks and slickensides that identify Vertisol behavior
- 12Dallas Industrial MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Overall Dallas-Fort Worth industrial vacancy in Q2 2026, Industrial space under construction in Q2 2026, Mid-size industrial buildings of 150,000 to 499,999 square feet were the only size segment with vacancy above 10 percent, while big-box vacancy tightened, and Average Dallas-Fort Worth industrial asking rent in Q2 2026
- 13Dallas Office MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Dallas-Fort Worth office vacancy, asking rent, and quarterly net absorption in Q2 2026 and Office absorption and rent growth varied materially among named Dallas-Fort Worth submarkets
- 14Facts and Figures: About Us
Used for: UT Southwestern institutional scale
- 15About Us
Used for: UT Southwestern reports 15.5 million square feet of facilities and more than 4,000 learners trained annually
- 16Permitting & Inspections: Signs
Used for: Dallas sign permits are required when a sign exceeds 20 square feet, exceeds eight feet in height, is illuminated or electrical, occupies or overhangs a public roadway, or is in a Special Provision Sign District and Premise attached-sign and sign-reface permit fees are USD 296; new premise detached-sign permits are USD 577
- 17Special Provision Sign Districts
Used for: All signs in a Special Provision Sign District require a Certificate of Appropriateness, an additional two-to-three-month review process, at least two public meetings, and a USD 397 review fee
- 18Landmark Review Process
Used for: Exterior work on Dallas landmarks or structures and lots in Landmark Districts requires a Certificate of Appropriateness before work begins
- 192021 Commercial Energy Code Process
Used for: Commercial new construction, additions, and first-time finish-outs filed on or after May 12, 2023 require a signed energy-compliance path with the building permit; remodels require a compliance certificate at project completion
- 20Permitting & Inspections: Inspections
Used for: Effective June 1, 2026, plumbing and mechanical rough inspections and final inspections must be scheduled together
- 21Q-Team Permitting & Inspections
Used for: The optional Q-Team expedited review charges a USD 1,000 hourly plan-review fee plus size-based intake and maximum fees
- 22Business Enterprise Hub: DRIVE Policy Overview
Used for: DRIVE applies when applicable to competitively solicited City contracts over USD 100,000 and sets category-specific SBE participation goals from 30 to 38 percent and SBE participation credit under DRIVE requires qualifying size, DFW-area principal office, independent ownership, a commercially useful function, and recognized certification
- 23How to Register as a Vendor
Used for: City procurement vendors register in Bonfire and select relevant commodity codes to receive and search matching opportunities
Before contacting a franchisor
Complete the next layer of due diligence
- Confirm the exact protected territory and neighboring units.
- Review the current Franchise Disclosure Document.
- Validate local staffing, licensing, insurance, and service-base assumptions.
- Obtain location, vehicle, buildout, or working-capital estimates.
- Speak with current and former franchisees.
- Build a candidate-specific financial scenario.
Apply the analysis to your situation
Review how these market findings apply to your budget, role, and proposed territory.
The city score does not include your experience, capital structure, time commitment, financing, or exact territory.
Disclaimer and broker disclosure: This analysis is informational and does not constitute financial, legal, accounting, or investment advice. Market-alignment scores do not predict financial performance or business success. Offers are made only through the delivery of a Franchise Disclosure Document. We may receive referral compensation from participating franchisors; compensation is not an input to the scoring model.