69.5 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Healthcare institutional service demand was a leading positive mechanism. Skilled-trade labor competition 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
27Sources used
19Primary sources
26Local 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
1.1 points average among 6 affected concepts
0.9 points average reduction among 10 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 12 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Baton Rouge, Louisiana
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, and FASTSIGNS produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Healthcare institutional service demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 6 exposed concepts, adding 0.6 points on average. Skilled-trade labor competition was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.9 points on average. Mister Sparky Electric was especially relationship-sensitive: removing skilled-trade labor competition moved it from #14 to #11 in the full model rerun. 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 | 72.4Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.4 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.8 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 69.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 69.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 69.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.7 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Large Baton Rouge healthcare institutions support an institution-oriented service account base
This relationship affected 6 concepts and added 0.6 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue reported in QuickFacts: 4,060,417,000 usd 2022. [4] [9]
Rapid construction growth increases hiring competition for selected skilled trades in a trade-intensive MSA
This relationship affected 10 concepts and reduced 0.9 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Baton Rouge MSA total nonfarm and construction employment in June 2026: total nonfarm jobs thousands: 435; total nonfarm yoy change percent: 2.2; construction jobs thousands: 57.4; construction yoy change percent: 21.6 jobs thousands and percent. [5] [6]
Baton Rouge city population was estimated at 222,795 in 2025, down 1.7 percent from the April 2020 estimate base
Slight resident-population contraction does not by itself describe the addressable institutional market. LSU, healthcare institutions, City-Parish procurement, and a large parish employment base create separate B2B and institutional account channels. These institutional conditions should not be converted into a general citywide walk-in-demand claim. [4] [8] [9] [11] [7]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large Baton Rouge healthcare institutions support an institution-oriented service account base1 modeled effect
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
LSU and City-Parish public-sector activity support institution-oriented account demand1 modeled effect
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Rapid construction growth increases hiring competition for selected skilled trades in a trade-intensive MSA1 modeled effect
Skilled-trade labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
Active I-10/I-110 widening creates temporary route uncertainty on affected Baton Rouge corridors1 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
City-Parish institutional procurement provides service-account opportunities but formal bidding gates public-sector acquisition1 modeled effect
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 alignment72.4
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +2.4 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 | +2.4 pts | |
| Net local movement | +2.42 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 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 | 72.42 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.4 |
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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#3
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.8
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.8 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 | +1.8 pts | |
| Net local movement | +1.76 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 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 | 71.76 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#4
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.0 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| 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
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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 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 | 70.57 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#7
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.5 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 | +0.5 pts | |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.51 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 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 | 70.51 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#5
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.27 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.27 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#8
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo 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.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#14
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -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 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.27 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 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 | 69.73 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.7 |
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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#12
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -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 |
| Net local movement | -0.30 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 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 | 69.70 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.7 |
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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#8
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 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 |
| -0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand | +0.3 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.34 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
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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 69.66 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.7 |
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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#9
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.3
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.7 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 |
| -0.7 pts |
| 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 69.30 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.3 |
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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#13
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.6
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.4 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 |
| -1.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.35 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 68.65 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#11
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.6
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.4 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 |
| -1.4 pts |
| 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 68.60 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.5
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.5 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 |
| -1.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.47 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 68.53 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.5 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.5
Mister Sparky Electric
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.5 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 |
| -1.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.50 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 68.50 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.5 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 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 | 72.42 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.4 |
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 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 6 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 8 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #3 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted6 of 14
Average among affected+1.1 pts
Average across all concepts+0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank8
What we observed
- Health Care And Social Assistance Receipts/revenue Reported In Quickfacts4,060,417,000 usd 2022
- Selected Baton Rouge Msa Institutional And Professional Employment In June 2026professional and business services jobs thousands: 54.2; education and health services jobs thousands: 62.1; government jobs thousands: 70.8
- Lsu Fall 2025 Total Enrollment43,385 students
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+2.4 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.8 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+1.0 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.9 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.5 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
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 10 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 9 concepts changed position. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors moved from #7 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted10 of 14
Average among affected-0.9 pts
Average across all concepts-0.6 pts
Concepts changing rank9
What we observed
- Baton Rouge Msa Total Nonfarm And Construction Employment In June 2026total nonfarm jobs thousands: 435; total nonfarm yoy change percent: 2.2; construction jobs thousands: 57.4; construction yoy change percent: 21.6 jobs thousands and percent
- Construction And Extraction Occupation Concentration And Mean Wageemployment: 35,060; employment share percent: 8.7; us employment share percent: 4.1; location quotient: 2.11; mean hourly wage usd: 28.04; us mean hourly wage usd: 30.73 mixed occupational metrics
- Selected Construction Trade Employment Concentration And Wagesconstruction laborers: employment: 7,680, location quotient: 2.78, mean hourly wage usd: 22.18; electricians: employment: 3,180, location quotient: 1.64, mean hourly wage usd: 31.34; plumbers pipefitters steamfitters: employment: 3,400, location quotient: 2.85, mean hourly wage usd: 33.61; boilermakers: employment: 1,100, location quotient: 41.18, mean hourly wage usd: 39.55 employment location quotient and usd per hour
Concepts challenged most
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-1.5 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-1.5 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-1.4 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.4 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.7 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Property replacement-cycle demandNo material score adjustment
- 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
- 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 WideModerately sensitive · tested #1–#3
#2 Jan-Pro InternationalModerately sensitive · tested #2–#4
#3 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #3–#7
#4 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #1–#5
#5 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #4–#8
#6 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #2–#14
#7 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #5–#12
#8 Tiger AdjustersModerately sensitive · tested #6–#8
#9 Rainbow International RestorationModerately sensitive · tested #6–#9
#10 PuroCleanModerately sensitive · tested #10–#13
#11 ZOOM DRAINModerately sensitive · tested #9–#11
#12 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #10–#12
#13 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #7–#13
#14 Mister Sparky ElectricModerately sensitive · tested #11–#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: [4] [7] [5] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [1] [2]Property replacement-cycle demand: [4] [18] [19] [27] [2] [1]Competitive environment: [26] [4] [7] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [5] [6] [7] [1] [22] [23]Transportation, routing, and parking: [14] [15] [16] [1] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [25] [2] [17] [18] [19] [21]Sales and customer acquisition: [11] [12] [13] [5] [26]Referral ecosystem: [8] [9] [10] [5] [11]Territory quality: [17] [18] [19] [14] [15] [2] [3] [27]Regulatory and operating friction: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [3] [1]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Labor and staffing friction |
|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +2.4 pts | — |
| #2 Jan-Pro International | +1.8 pts | — |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +1.0 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #4 ActionCOACH | +0.5 pts | — |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +0.9 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #6 Workout Anytime | — | — |
| #7 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | -0.3 pts |
| #8 Tiger Adjusters | — | -0.3 pts |
| #9 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.3 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #10 PuroClean | — | -0.7 pts |
| #11 ZOOM DRAIN | — | -1.4 pts |
| #12 Mr. Rooter | — | -1.4 pts |
| #13 Aire Serv | — | -1.5 pts |
| #14 Mister Sparky Electric | — | -1.5 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 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, ActionCOACH, HomeSmiles; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.5Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.3 to 69.7. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 69.7. Target-market demand added 0.2 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.7 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.4-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 69.3–69.7
- Category average
- 69.5
Rainbow International Restoration69.7
PuroClean69.3
Metric registry
The 26 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 | 222,795people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic data where indicated | Baton Rouge, Louisiana | Supports research conclusion | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | -1.7percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic data where indicated | Baton Rouge, Louisiana | Supports research conclusion | [4] |
| Households in the 2020-2024 estimate period | 88,205households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic data where indicated | Baton Rouge, Louisiana | Context only | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing-unit rate | 47.8percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic data where indicated | Baton Rouge, Louisiana | Context only | [4] |
| Persons in poverty | 25.7percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic data where indicated | Baton Rouge, Louisiana | Context only | [4] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue reported in QuickFacts | 4,060,417,000usd 2022 | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic data where indicated | Baton Rouge, Louisiana | Used in scoring | [4] |
| East Baton Rouge Parish covered employment, establishments, and weekly wages | covered employment december 2025 thousands: 272.6; covered establishments q4 2025 thousands: 19.5; employment change december 2024 to 2025 percent: -0.7; average weekly wage q4 2025 usd: 1,371; weekly wage change q4 2024 to q4 2025 percent: 2.7mixed reported metrics | Fourth quarter 2025; December 2025 employment | East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana | Context only | [7] |
| LSU Fall 2025 total enrollment | 43,385students | Fall 2025 census enrollment | Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Current Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center and care-network scale | licensed beds more than: 900; care network providers more than: 650; specialties more than: 40; urgent care locations approximate: 15mixed institution scale | Current organizational profile accessed August 2026 | Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center and care network, Greater Baton Rouge | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Our Lady of the Lake ministry employment serving the Capital Region | employees more than: 7,500employees | Organizational scale reported September 2024 | Our Lady of the Lake ministry, Capital Region | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Baton Rouge MSA total nonfarm and construction employment in June 2026 | total nonfarm jobs thousands: 435; total nonfarm yoy change percent: 2.2; construction jobs thousands: 57.4; construction yoy change percent: 21.6jobs thousands and percent | June 2026 preliminary employment data | Baton Rouge, Louisiana Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Selected Baton Rouge MSA institutional and professional employment in June 2026 | professional and business services jobs thousands: 54.2; education and health services jobs thousands: 62.1; government jobs thousands: 70.8jobs thousands | June 2026 preliminary employment data | Baton Rouge, Louisiana Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Construction and extraction occupation concentration and mean wage | employment: 35,060; employment share percent: 8.7; us employment share percent: 4.1; location quotient: 2.11; mean hourly wage usd: 28.04; us mean hourly wage usd: 30.73mixed occupational metrics | May 2024 | Baton Rouge, Louisiana Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Selected construction-trade employment concentration and wages | construction laborers: employment: 7,680, location quotient: 2.78, mean hourly wage usd: 22.18; electricians: employment: 3,180, location quotient: 1.64, mean hourly wage usd: 31.34; plumbers pipefitters steamfitters: employment: 3,400, location quotient: 2.85, mean hourly wage usd: 33.61; boilermakers: employment: 1,100, location quotient: 41.18, mean hourly wage usd: 39.55employment location quotient and usd per hour | May 2024 | Baton Rouge, Louisiana Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Selected broad occupation mean wages compared with U.S. averages | all occupations: baton rouge mean hourly usd: 28.75, us mean hourly usd: 32.66; food preparation and serving: baton rouge mean hourly usd: 13.16, us mean hourly usd: 17.32; office and administrative support: baton rouge mean hourly usd: 20.86, us mean hourly usd: 24.12; installation maintenance and repair: baton rouge mean hourly usd: 28.74, us mean hourly usd: 29.63usd per hour | May 2024 | Baton Rouge, Louisiana Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [6] |
| Active I-10/I-110 widening and reconstruction in Baton Rouge | interstate construction start anticipated: 2026-04-10; phase 1 segments 1 to 3 scheduled construction completion year: 2,031; segment 4 schedule: future funding dependent; july 2026 weekly lane and ramp closure notices: yesproject status | Current project schedule accessed August 2026 | I-10 Phase 1 and I-110 interchange corridors in Baton Rouge | Conditional relationship | [14] [15] [16] |
| Neighborhood zoning-district building-size and drive-through rules | conditional use permit required above sqft: 2,500; maximum building area sqft: 5,000; drive through facilities permitted: noregulatory thresholds | September 2025 edition | NO, NC, and NC-AB neighborhood zoning districts within the City-Parish UDC jurisdiction | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| Home-occupation conditional-use constraints in covered single-family residential districts | customer or client appointment window: 07:00-19:00; resident must be primary occupant: yes; business signage permitted: no; minimum lot area sqft: 22,500; recognized residential subdivision allowed: noregulatory conditions | September 2025 edition | Single-family residential districts where UDC Section 9.4.5 applies | Context only | [17] |
| Flood-zone determination and elevation or floodproofing requirements are site- and project-specific | flood zone determination for building or development permit: yes; determination includes: FEMA flood zone, FEMA base flood elevation, Community Defined SFHA, Community Defined Flood Elevation, record inundation; new or substantially improved nonresidential in affected areas: elevate lowest floor or floodproof in accordance with Chapter 15; minimum first floor rule in fema or community defined sfha: at least one foot above the highest applicable listed elevation controlregulatory requirements | April 2023 edition currently posted | Properties subject to City-Parish floodplain permitting and mapped FEMA or Community Defined hazard conditions | Conditional relationship | [18] [19] |
| Sign permits, placement rules, and district-specific sign standards | permit required for erect substantially modify or relocate sign: yes; sight distance triangles must remain unblocked: yes; general public right of way signs prohibited unless expressly allowed: yes; roof signs: limited to designated centers: yes, conditional use permit required: yes, minimum building height ft: 80, maximum sign area rule: 15 percent of largest wall area or 600 square feet, whichever is smallerregulatory requirements | May 2023 edition currently posted | Sites within City-Parish sign-code jurisdiction | Conditional relationship | [20] |
| Current commercial permit and plan-review fee schedule | technology fee usd: 25; flood zone determination fee usd: 25; wall sign permit usd: 250; billboard or freestanding sign permit usd: 500; commercial plan review: up to 500000 valuation: $3 per $1,000, $100 minimum, above 500000 valuation: $1,500 plus $0.50 per $1,000 above $500,000; commercial building permit: up to 100000 valuation: $5 per $1,000, $100 minimum, 100000 to 500000 valuation: $500 plus $4 per $1,000 above $100,000, above 500000 valuation: $2,100 plus $1.50 per $1,000 above $500,000; credit card fee percent: 5fee schedule | Current fee schedule accessed August 2026 | City-Parish permit and inspection jurisdiction | Conditional relationship | [21] |
| Residential contractor credential threshold and current local-registration distinction | residential work threshold usd: 7,500; required above threshold: registered home improvement contractor or licensed residential contractor, subject to stated homeowner exemption; east baton rouge local contractor registration currently required: noregulatory threshold | Current residential permitting guidance accessed August 2026 | East Baton Rouge Parish permitting guidance | Context only | [22] [23] |
| Occupational-license timing and initial fee for new businesses | license timing: one month prior to opening; initial fee january through june usd: 50; initial fee july through december usd: 25; ongoing rate basis: business class and gross receiptslicense rule | Current business-license guidance accessed August 2026 | City-Parish occupational-license jurisdiction | Context only | [24] |
| City-Parish formal vendor and competitive-bid channel includes recurring service procurements | vendor registration required for bid notifications: yes; procurement governed by public bid law and local rules: yes; recent service categories observed: janitorial services, window cleaning, generator and engine service, fire alarm work, rodent and bait control, contingency cateringprocurement process and examples | Current procurement registration rules accessed August 2026 | City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge | Used in scoring | [11] [12] [13] |
| East Baton Rouge Parish industrial property stock in a proprietary industry database | industrial properties: 2,574; total square feet: 28,316,484; average building size sqft: 14,102properties and square feet | Current proprietary property-database summary accessed August 2026 | East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana | Context only | [25] |
| Localized InSAR-measured ground displacement in East Baton Rouge Parish | residential area between named faults cm per year range: -1, -0.7; downtown mm per year: -6.1; bridge mm per year: -2.99; central railway mm per year: -4.94displacement rate | 2017-2021 InSAR observations | Selected residential, downtown, bridge, rail, and industrial areas in East Baton Rouge Parish | Context only | [27] |
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 whose applicability is established at the report’s current geographic and operating scope.
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 72.42 after target-market demand +2.4 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 claims or metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is clearly distinguished from publicly accessible evidence.
- 1Forensic Audit of Municipal Structural Constraints and Deal-Killer LiabilitiesInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Strategic Utility Delta Audit: Structural Inefficiencies and CRE Arbitrage Across Local U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - B start(20260807-194941).csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4QuickFacts: Baton Rouge city, Louisiana
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households in the 2020-2024 estimate period, Owner-occupied housing-unit rate, and Persons in poverty
- 5Baton Rouge, LA Economy at a Glance
Used for: Baton Rouge MSA total nonfarm and construction employment in June 2026 and Selected Baton Rouge MSA institutional and professional employment in June 2026
- 6Occupational Employment and Wages in Baton Rouge — May 2024
Used for: Construction and extraction occupation concentration and mean wage, Selected construction-trade employment concentration and wages, and Selected broad occupation mean wages compared with U.S. averages
- 7Parish Employment and Wages in Louisiana — Fourth Quarter 2025
Used for: East Baton Rouge Parish covered employment, establishments, and weekly wages
- 8Office of Data and Strategic Analytics
Used for: LSU Fall 2025 total enrollment
- 9Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center
Used for: Current Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center and care-network scale
- 10Our Lady of the Lake Welcomes Dr. Marsden
Used for: Our Lady of the Lake ministry employment serving the Capital Region
- 11Vendor Self-Service Registration
Used for: City-Parish formal vendor and competitive-bid channel includes recurring service procurements
- 12Scheduled Bid Openings
Used for: City-Parish formal vendor and competitive-bid channel includes recurring service procurements
- 13Bid Results
Used for: City-Parish formal vendor and competitive-bid channel includes recurring service procurements
- 14Schedule — I-10 Baton Rouge
Used for: Active I-10/I-110 widening and reconstruction in Baton Rouge
- 15Next Phase of I-10 Widening and Reconstruction Moves Forward in Baton Rouge
Used for: Active I-10/I-110 widening and reconstruction in Baton Rouge
- 16I-10 Widening and Reconstruction Project Weekly Road Closures
Used for: Active I-10/I-110 widening and reconstruction in Baton Rouge
- 17Unified Development Code Chapter 9 — Use Regulations
Used for: Neighborhood zoning-district building-size and drive-through rules and Home-occupation conditional-use constraints in covered single-family residential districts
- 18Unified Development Code Chapter 15 — Floodways, Floodplains, Drainage and Water Quality
Used for: Flood-zone determination and elevation or floodproofing requirements are site- and project-specific
- 19QuickFacts — Flood Hazard Areas
Used for: Flood-zone determination and elevation or floodproofing requirements are site- and project-specific
- 20Unified Development Code Chapter 16 — Signs
Used for: Sign permits, placement rules, and district-specific sign standards
- 21Permit & Inspection Fees
Used for: Current commercial permit and plan-review fee schedule
- 22Residential
Used for: Residential contractor credential threshold and current local-registration distinction
- 23Inspection Divisions
Used for: Residential contractor credential threshold and current local-registration distinction
- 24Occupational License Tax
Used for: Occupational-license timing and initial fee for new businesses
- 25Industrial Real Estate in Baton Rouge
Used for: East Baton Rouge Parish industrial property stock in a proprietary industry database
- 26
- 27InSAR Ground Displacement Assessment in East Baton Rouge Parish
Used for: Localized InSAR-measured ground displacement in East Baton Rouge Parish
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.