70.6 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Tampa, Florida
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Tampa, Florida. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Legacy-system service complexity 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
19Sources used
15Primary sources
25Local 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
0.6 points average among 11 affected concepts
0.2 points average reduction among 6 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 8 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Tampa, Florida
City Wide, ActionCOACH, 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 0.7 points on average. One important asymmetry was that the same local condition supported replacement and repair demand while also creating legacy-system service complexity. 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 | 72.2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 71.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 71.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Tampa, Florida
Large institutional, transportation, visitor, and registered-business activity supports a broad local account base
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 0.7 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: MacDill Air Force Base community and economic scale: economic impact usd: 4,100,000,000; payroll usd: 1,500,000,000; indirect jobs: 18,200; dod beneficiaries: 240,000 usd jobs and beneficiaries. [13] [9]
A material pre-2000 housing cohort supports replacement and legacy-system service demand
The same local condition created complementary effects: replacement and repair demand supported exposed concepts while legacy-system service complexity constrained others. [2]
tourism_demand_concentration
Countywide visitor volume is not uniform citywide demand. Short-term-rental concentration differed sharply among Tampa ZIP-code areas, while airport and cruise activity create identifiable access nodes. Fixed-location concepts must validate the actual visitor-serving trade area rather than applying the county total to every Tampa submarket. [8] [2] [9] [10]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large institutional, transportation, visitor, and registered-business activity supports a broad local account base1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Housing affordability and combined housing-transport costs constrain discretionary spending for exposed customer segments1 modeled effect
Discretionary-spending pressureTarget-market demand
A material pre-2000 housing cohort supports replacement and legacy-system service demand3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 1 source
- Housing units in the Florida Department of Revenue inventory built before 2000: 37.8 percent of listed units [2]
- Housing units in the Florida Department of Revenue inventory built before 1990: 17.3 percent of listed units [2]
- Housing units in structures with 50 or more units: 15.1 percent of occupied units [2]
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Legacy-system service complexityLabor and staffing friction
Active Downtown and Westshore interchange construction can reduce route predictability on affected approaches1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
Large university, military, port, and airport anchors support institutional account and referral opportunities3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- MacDill Air Force Base community and economic scale: economic impact usd: 4,100,000,000; payroll usd: 1,500,000,000; indirect jobs: 18,200; dod beneficiaries: 240,000 usd jobs and beneficiaries [13]
- Port Tampa Bay fiscal-year 2025 cargo and passenger activity: cargo net tons: 32,415,926; teus: 262,803; cruise passengers: 1,660,315; cruise sailings: 368 tons teus passengers and sailings [9]
- Projected Tampa International Airport passenger traffic for fiscal year 2026: 25,700,000 passenger movements projected [10]
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 alignment72.2
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.6 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 |
| +1.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.25 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 | +1.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.7 |
| 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 | 72.25 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.2 |
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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#1
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.8
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +1.2 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 |
| +1.2 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.82 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 | +1.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| 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 | 71.82 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.8 |
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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#4
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.7
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +1.4 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 |
| +1.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.71 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 | +1.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| 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 | 71.71 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.7 |
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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#7
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.5
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.4 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 |
| +1.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.53 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 | +1.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.2 |
| 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 | 71.53 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.5 |
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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#8
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.4
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 |
| +0.8 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.36 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 | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| 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 | 71.36 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.4 |
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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#5
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.70 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 | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| 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 | 70.70 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#6
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.57 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 | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| 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 | 70.57 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#11
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.57 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 | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| 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 | 70.57 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#12
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.23 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 | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.23 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#12
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.21 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 | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.21 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#13
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.21 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 | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.21 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.19 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 | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.19 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.07 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 | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 69.93 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.5 pts Target-market demand
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 |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.54 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 69.46 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.5 |
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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand -0.5 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 | +1.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.7 |
| 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 | 72.25 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.2 |
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 effectMixed or model dependent
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, 12 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #3 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted11 of 14
Average among affected+0.6 pts
Average across all concepts+0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Median Combined Housing And Transportation Cost Share And Planning District Rangecitywide: 53; minimum: 40; minimum district: New Tampa; maximum: 66; maximum district: USF Institutional percent of household income
- Estimated Shortage Of Affordable And Available Rental Units For Households Earning Up To 50 Percent Of Area Median Income26,153 rental units
- Port Tampa Bay Fiscal Year 2025 Cargo And Passenger Activitycargo net tons: 32,415,926; teus: 262,803; cruise passengers: 1,660,315; cruise sailings: 368 tons teus passengers and sailings
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.6 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+1.4 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.4 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+1.2 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.8 pts
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.5 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 4 concepts changed position. Mr. Rooter moved from #9 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.2 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank4
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.3 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.3 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.3 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.3 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.2 pts
Observed model effectResearched; no material local effect
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 6 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. PuroClean moved from #8 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted6 of 14
Average among affected-0.2 pts
Average across all concepts-0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank6
Concepts challenged most
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-0.3 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.3 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.3 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.3 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.1 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Referral ecosystem
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 9 concepts changed position. Rainbow International Restoration moved from #7 to #11, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.5 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank9
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.7 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.6 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.5 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.5 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo 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–#1
#2 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #2–#4
#3 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #2–#7
#4 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #3–#8
#5 HomeSmilesStable · tested #5–#5
#6 ZOOM DRAINStable · tested #6–#6
#7 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #3–#11
#8 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #4–#12
#9 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #7–#12
#10 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13
#11 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsModerately sensitive · tested #9–#12
#12 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #9–#13
#13 Mister Sparky ElectricModerately sensitive · tested #11–#14
#14 Workout AnytimeModerately 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: [1] [2] [3] [5] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [13]Property replacement-cycle demand: [1] [2] [12] [19]Competitive environment: [5] [1] [8] [16]Labor and staffing friction: [6] [7] [11] [13] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [14] [15] [9] [10]Real estate and site feasibility: [16] [2] [4] [17] [18] [19]Sales and customer acquisition: [5] [1] [8]Referral ecosystem: [11] [12] [13] [9] [10] [8] [5]Territory quality: [1] [2] [8] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]Regulatory and operating friction: [4] [17] [18] [19] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +1.6 pts | — | — | +0.7 pts |
| #2 ActionCOACH | +1.2 pts | — | — | +0.6 pts |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +1.4 pts | — | — | +0.3 pts |
| #4 Jan-Pro International | +1.4 pts | — | — | +0.2 pts |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +0.8 pts | — | — | +0.5 pts |
| #6 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.3 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.3 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #7 Rainbow International Restoration | — | +0.2 pts | -0.1 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #8 PuroClean | — | +0.2 pts | -0.1 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #9 Mr. Rooter | +0.2 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.3 pts | — |
| #10 Aire Serv | +0.2 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.3 pts | — |
| #11 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.1 pts | +0.1 pts | — | — |
| #12 Tiger Adjusters | +0.2 pts | — | — | — |
| #13 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.3 pts | -0.3 pts | — |
| #14 Workout Anytime | -0.5 pts | — | — | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, ActionCOACH, FASTSIGNS led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to labor and staffing friction. 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 FASTSIGNS, Jan-Pro International, Rainbow International Restoration; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Tampa, Florida
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.6Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Tampa, Florida
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.6 to 70.6. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.6. Referral ecosystem added 0.5 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.1 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.0-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.6–70.6
- Category average
- 70.6
Rainbow International Restoration70.6
PuroClean70.6
Metric registry
The 25 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 | 413,554people | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 selected characteristics | Tampa, Florida | Context only | [1] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 7.3percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 selected characteristics | Tampa, Florida | Context only | [1] |
| Households and owner-occupied housing share | households: 166,278; owner occupied housing share: 50.3households and percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 selected characteristics | Tampa, Florida | Context only | [1] |
| Estimated shortage of affordable and available rental units for households earning up to 50 percent of area median income | 26,153rental units | Primarily 2021-2023, with residential permitting through 2022 and projections through 2050 | Tampa, Florida renter market | Used in scoring | [2] |
| Median combined housing and transportation cost share and planning-district range | citywide: 53; minimum: 40; minimum district: New Tampa; maximum: 66; maximum district: USF Institutionalpercent of household income | Primarily 2021-2023, with residential permitting through 2022 and projections through 2050 | City of Tampa planning districts | Used in scoring | [2] |
| Permitted residential units from 2018 through 2022 | total: 16,980; single family: 5,873; duplex: 73; tri quad: 140; multifamily: 10,894permitted housing units | Primarily 2021-2023, with residential permitting through 2022 and projections through 2050 | City of Tampa | Context only | [2] |
| Housing units in the Florida Department of Revenue inventory built before 2000 | 37.8percent of listed units | Primarily 2021-2023, with residential permitting through 2022 and projections through 2050 | Tampa units in 2022 Florida Department of Revenue inventory | Supports modeled relationship | [2] |
| Housing units in the Florida Department of Revenue inventory built before 1990 | 17.3percent of listed units | Primarily 2021-2023, with residential permitting through 2022 and projections through 2050 | Tampa units in 2022 Florida Department of Revenue inventory | Supports modeled relationship | [2] |
| Housing units in structures with 50 or more units | 15.1percent of occupied units | Primarily 2021-2023, with residential permitting through 2022 and projections through 2050 | Tampa, Florida | Supports modeled relationship | [2] |
| Short-term-rental share of housing stock varied across listed Tampa ZIP-code areas | maximum: 15.6; maximum zip: 33607; minimum: 1.9; minimum zip: 33647; listed total properties: 17,975percent of zip housing stock and properties | Primarily 2021-2023, with residential permitting through 2022 and projections through 2050 | Tampa ZIP-code areas; some ZIPs only partially inside city limits | Conditional relationship | [2] |
| Paid business tax receipt records in the indexed City of Tampa registry | 32,915receipt records | Paid business tax receipt records for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025; search index refreshed June 12, 2025 | City of Tampa business tax receipt search | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Building permits issued or approved and inspections conducted in fiscal year 2025 | permits issued or approved: 29,835; inspections and reinspections conducted: 138,769; dedicated personnel: 102annual actions and personnel | City fiscal year 2025 | City of Tampa | Context only | [4] |
| Mean hourly wages for operationally relevant major occupational groups compared with national averages | all occupations: tampa msa: 31.96, united states: 33.54; food preparation and serving: tampa msa: 18.23, united states: 17.86; building and grounds cleaning: tampa msa: 18.07, united states: 19.66; construction and extraction: tampa msa: 26.69, united states: 31.42; installation maintenance and repair: tampa msa: 27.57, united states: 30.44; transportation and material moving: tampa msa: 21.28, united states: 23.96usd per hour | May 2025 | Tampa-St | Context only | [6] |
| Metropolitan labor force and employment in May 2026 | labor force thousands: 1,690.6; employment thousands: 1,613.8thousands of people | Labor force and employment through May 2026 | Tampa-St | Context only | [7] |
| Hillsborough County visitors, direct spending, and tourism-supported jobs in 2025 | visitors: 28,000,000; direct visitor spending usd: 6,000,000,000; supported jobs approximate: 62,000; visitation change: -0.6people usd jobs and percent | Calendar year 2025 | Hillsborough County, Florida | Context only | [8] |
| Port Tampa Bay fiscal-year 2025 cargo and passenger activity | cargo net tons: 32,415,926; teus: 262,803; cruise passengers: 1,660,315; cruise sailings: 368tons teus passengers and sailings | Port fiscal year 2025 | Port Tampa Bay | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Projected Tampa International Airport passenger traffic for fiscal year 2026 | 25,700,000passenger movements projected | FY2026 budget and FY2025 passenger baseline | Tampa International Airport | Used in scoring | [10] |
| University of South Florida system student and employee scale | students approximate: 50,000; employees more than: 16,000people | Fall 2025 enrollment and current employee count | University of South Florida system across Tampa Bay campuses | Used in scoring | [11] |
| USF Tampa campus physical footprint | buildings: 249; building square feet: 10,600,000; campus acres: 1,562buildings square feet and acres | Current campus facts accessed July 2026 | University of South Florida Tampa campus | Supports modeled relationship | [12] |
| MacDill Air Force Base community and economic scale | economic impact usd: 4,100,000,000; payroll usd: 1,500,000,000; indirect jobs: 18,200; dod beneficiaries: 240,000usd jobs and beneficiaries | 2023 economic impact; fact sheet current April 2025 | MacDill Air Force Base and Tampa Bay community | Used in scoring | [13] |
| Downtown Tampa I-275/I-4 interchange construction status | project start: fall 2023; expected completion: spring 2027; construction cost usd: 227,500,000; current work reference: June 2026project status | Current work activities June 2026; construction fall 2023 through expected spring 2027 | Downtown Tampa I-275/I-4 interchange and connected ramps | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| Westshore I-275/SR 60 Priority 1A construction and listed closures | project start: 2026-01-01; phase 1a cost usd: 653,300,000; frontage road lane closure through: late 2026; continuous frontage road closure through: 2027-01-31project status | Priority 1A construction beginning January 2026; listed closures through January 2027 | Westshore I-275/SR 60, airport approaches, and affected frontage roads | Conditional relationship | [15] |
| Tampa industrial market showed positive absorption and building-size segmentation | positive net absorption since early 2025 sqft approximate: 1,800,000; relative performance: smaller and mid sized buildings outperformed larger bulk distribution facilitiessquare feet and directional market condition | Q2 2026 and absorption since early 2025 | Tampa industrial market | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| Construction in designated Tampa historic districts is reviewed under district design guidelines | arc districts: Hyde Park, Seminole Heights, Tampa Heights; blc district: Ybor City Historic Districtdistricts and review process | Current guidance accessed July 2026 | Designated local historic districts in Tampa | Conditional relationship | [17] [18] |
| Flood maps determine property risk, insurance, elevation information, and building requirements | primary causes: localized thunderstorm and tropical rainfall, tidally influenced flooding, storm surge; crs class: 5; flood zone policy discount percent: 25; outside flood zone policy discount percent: 10conditions and percent | Current flood-map, insurance, and building-requirement guidance accessed July 2026 | City of Tampa FEMA and localized flood-hazard areas | Context only | [19] |
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 72.25 after target-market demand +1.6 pts and referral ecosystem +0.7 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.
- 1QuickFacts: Tampa city, Florida
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, and Households and owner-occupied housing share
- 2City of Tampa Housing Needs Assessment — Data Report
Used for: Estimated shortage of affordable and available rental units for households earning up to 50 percent of area median income, Median combined housing and transportation cost share and planning-district range, Permitted residential units from 2018 through 2022, Housing units in the Florida Department of Revenue inventory built before 2000, and Housing units in the Florida Department of Revenue inventory built before 1990
- 3
- 4Building Permit and Inspection Utilization Report (FY25)
Used for: Building permits issued or approved and inspections conducted in fiscal year 2025
- 5Business Tax Receipts Search
Used for: Paid business tax receipt records in the indexed City of Tampa registry
- 6Occupational Employment and Wages in Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wages for operationally relevant major occupational groups compared with national averages
- 7Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Economy at a Glance
Used for: Metropolitan labor force and employment in May 2026
- 82025 Tourism Campaigns Net $9.5 Billion Economic Impact to Support Hillsborough County
Used for: Hillsborough County visitors, direct spending, and tourism-supported jobs in 2025
- 9Port Tampa Bay Statistics
Used for: Port Tampa Bay fiscal-year 2025 cargo and passenger activity
- 10HCAA Approves FY2026 Budget, Including Main Terminal Upgrades
Used for: Projected Tampa International Airport passenger traffic for fiscal year 2026
- 11About USF
Used for: University of South Florida system student and employee scale
- 12Tampa Campus
Used for: USF Tampa campus physical footprint
- 13MacDill Air Force Base Fact Sheet
Used for: MacDill Air Force Base community and economic scale
- 14Downtown Tampa Interchange (I-275/I-4) Safety and Operational Improvements
Used for: Downtown Tampa I-275/I-4 interchange construction status
- 15Tampa’s Westshore Interchange (I-275/SR 60) Safety and Operational Improvements
Used for: Westshore I-275/SR 60 Priority 1A construction and listed closures
- 16Tampa Industrial Figures — Q2 2026
Used for: Tampa industrial market showed positive absorption and building-size segmentation
- 17Design Guidelines
Used for: Construction in designated Tampa historic districts is reviewed under district design guidelines
- 18Barrio Latino Commission
Used for: Construction in designated Tampa historic districts is reviewed under district design guidelines
- 19Flooding
Used for: Flood maps determine property risk, insurance, elevation information, and building requirements
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.