69.5 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Fayetteville, Arkansas
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Fayetteville, Arkansas. Household service demand was a leading positive mechanism. Broad labor scarcity was a leading operating constraint.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
23Sources used
16Primary sources
21Local 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
0.8 points average among 8 affected concepts
0.4 points average reduction among 10 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 8 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Fayetteville, Arkansas
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Mr. Rooter, and Mister Sparky Electric produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Household service demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 8 exposed concepts, adding 0.9 points on average. Broad labor scarcity was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.4 points on average. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors was especially relationship-sensitive: removing household service demand moved it from #1 to #4 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 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 69.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 69.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Fayetteville, Arkansas
Documented household formation accompanies rapid resident growth
This relationship affected 8 concepts and added 0.9 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Household formation documented by the 2026 Housing Assessment since 2019: net new households more than: 5,000; family households share of net growth approximate: 81 households and percent. [8] [7] [6]
Metropolitan unemployment below the national rate indicates a relatively tight broad labor market
This relationship affected 10 concepts and reduced 0.4 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers metropolitan unemployment rate in May 2026 compared with the United States: fayetteville metro preliminary: 3; united states: 4.3 percent. [10] [12]
University of Arkansas Fall 2025 enrollment was 34,161
The University is a large institutional anchor, but official enrollment snapshots fall sharply in summer terms. Fall enrollment should not be treated as a constant year-round resident or walk-in customer count. Campus-facing concepts should model term timing and exact trade-area dependence, while institutional sellers should separately evaluate procurement and vendor eligibility. [9] [21] [22]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Documented household formation accompanies rapid resident growth1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
University of Arkansas is a large, seasonally variable institutional anchor with formal public-sector buying channels nearby3 local facts · 3 modeled effects · 3 sources
- University of Arkansas Fall 2025 enrollment: 34,161 students [9]
- University of Arkansas summer enrollment snapshots compared with regular-term enrollment: summer ii 2025: 4,152; summer i 2026: 9,383; spring 2026: 32,163; fall 2025: 34,161 students [9]
- City bidding and RFP/RFQ opportunities use a formal electronic procurement process: electronic bidding: yes; vendor registration for bids rfps rfqs: required by vendor-registration page; selection committee contact during rfp rfq: prohibited until committee vote; bid terms: vary by solicitation process requirements [21] [22]
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Campus-contained demand constraintTarget-market demand
Institutional professional relationship baseReferral ecosystem
Metropolitan unemployment below the national rate indicates a relatively tight broad labor market1 modeled effect
Broad labor scarcityLabor and staffing friction
Active Maple Street reconstruction can temporarily disrupt route access near the university corridor1 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
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 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.4
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +1.4 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 |
| +1.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.38 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 | +1.4 |
| 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 | 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 | 71.38 |
| 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
- Adequate
- 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
- #1–#4
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +1.0 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 |
| +1.0 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.99 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 | +1.0 |
| 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 | 70.99 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.0 |
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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#4
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.9 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 |
| +0.9 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.92 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 | +0.9 |
| 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 | 70.92 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.9 |
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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#5
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +1.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.1 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.91 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 | +1.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 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 | 70.91 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.9 |
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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#8
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.9 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 |
| +0.9 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.87 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 | 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 | 70.87 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.9 |
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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#6
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.1 pts Target-market 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.1 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.79 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 | +1.1 |
| 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 | 70.79 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#10
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.28 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 | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 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 | 70.28 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#7
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Referral ecosystem | Institutional professional relationship base EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.10 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 | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.90 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#14
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.1 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 |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.12 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 | 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 | -0.1 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.88 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#9
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.2 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 |
| -0.2 pts |
| Target-market demand | University and government account demand EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.24 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 | -0.2 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.76 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#11
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.4 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.43 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 | -0.4 |
| 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 | 69.57 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.6 |
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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#11
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.5 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption 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 | 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 | -0.5 |
| 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 | 69.49 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +0.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.7 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 |
| -0.7 pts |
| Target-market demand | +0.1 pts | |
| Net local movement | -0.60 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 | +0.1 |
| 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 | 69.40 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.1
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.9 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.9 pts |
| Target-market demand | University and government account demand EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.93 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 | 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 | -0.9 |
| 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 | 69.07 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #13–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
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 | +1.4 |
| 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 | 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 | 71.38 |
| 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.
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 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #5 to #1, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.8 pts
Average across all concepts+0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Resident Population Estimate On July 1, 2025106,623 people
- Population Change From The April 2020 Estimate Base To July 1, 202513.1 percent
- Household Formation Documented By The 2026 Housing Assessment Since 2019net new households more than: 5,000; family households share of net growth approximate: 81 households and percent
Concepts helped most
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+1.4 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.1 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+1.1 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+1.0 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.9 pts
Concepts challenged most
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
0.0 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
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, 12 concepts changed position. ActionCOACH moved from #8 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted10 of 14
Average among affected-0.4 pts
Average across all concepts-0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Fayetteville Springdale Rogers Metropolitan Unemployment Rate In May 2026 Compared With The United Statesfayetteville metro preliminary: 3; united states: 4.3 percent
- Metropolitan Nonfarm Employment And 12 Month Change In June 2026total nonfarm thousands: 308.6; twelve month change percent: 2.9 thousands of jobs and percent
- Metropolitan Mean Wages And Employment Concentrations For Overlapping Operating Labor Groupsall occupations: fayetteville metro: 28.63, united states: 32.66; food preparation and serving: fayetteville metro: 15.03; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: fayetteville metro: 16.59; transportation and material moving: fayetteville metro: 21.38, united states: 23.44, employment share percent: 10.1, national share percent: 8.9; heavy and tractor trailer truck drivers: employment: 7,570, location quotient: 2.11, mean hourly wage: 27.12 usd per hour and employment metrics
Concepts challenged most
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-0.9 pts
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.7 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-0.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.4 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
-0.3 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 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsModerately sensitive · tested #1–#4
#2 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #2–#4
#3 Mister Sparky ElectricModerately sensitive · tested #3–#5
#4 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #3–#8
#5 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #1–#6
#6 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #2–#10
#7 Tiger AdjustersModerately sensitive · tested #5–#7
#8 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #6–#14
#9 FASTSIGNSModerately sensitive · tested #7–#9
#10 City WideModerately sensitive · tested #9–#11
#11 PuroCleanStable · tested #10–#11
#12 Rainbow International RestorationStable · tested #12–#12
#13 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13
#14 Jan-Pro InternationalStable · tested #13–#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: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [3] [5]Property replacement-cycle demand: [7] [8] [6] [3] [5]Competitive environment: [6] [9] [23] [5]Labor and staffing friction: [10] [12] [11] [4] [3]Transportation, routing, and parking: [17] [18] [14] [5] [4]Real estate and site feasibility: [23] [16] [13] [19] [7] [3] [5]Sales and customer acquisition: [21] [22] [9] [6] [5]Referral ecosystem: [9] [21] [22] [5]Territory quality: [16] [17] [18] [9] [19] [20] [5]Regulatory and operating friction: [20] [13] [19] [16] [14] [4] [5]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Labor and staffing friction |
|---|---|---|
| #1 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +1.4 pts | — |
| #2 Mr. Rooter | +1.0 pts | — |
| #3 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.9 pts | — |
| #4 Aire Serv | +1.1 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #5 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.9 pts | — |
| #6 HomeSmiles | +1.1 pts | -0.3 pts |
| #7 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #8 ActionCOACH | — | -0.1 pts |
| #9 FASTSIGNS | — | -0.1 pts |
| #10 City Wide | — | -0.2 pts |
| #11 PuroClean | — | -0.4 pts |
| #12 Rainbow International Restoration | — | -0.5 pts |
| #13 Workout Anytime | +0.1 pts | -0.7 pts |
| #14 Jan-Pro International | — | -0.9 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Mr. Rooter, Mister Sparky Electric 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 Aire Serv, ZOOM DRAIN, HomeSmiles; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Fayetteville, Arkansas
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 Fayetteville, Arkansas
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.5 to 69.6. PuroClean ranked highest at 69.6. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.5 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.1-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 69.5–69.6
- Category average
- 69.5
PuroClean69.6
Rainbow International Restoration69.5
Metric registry
The 21 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 | 106,623people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020 estimate base; 2020-2024 selected characteristics | Fayetteville, Arkansas | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 1, 2025 | 13.1percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020 estimate base; 2020-2024 selected characteristics | Fayetteville, Arkansas | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Household formation documented by the 2026 Housing Assessment since 2019 | net new households more than: 5,000; family households share of net growth approximate: 81households and percent | Draft released June-July 2026; incorporates 2026 Housing Assessment data | Fayetteville, Arkansas | Used in scoring | [8] [7] |
| Renter households estimated to be housing cost-burdened in 2024 | 45.4percent of renter households | Draft released June-July 2026; incorporates 2026 Housing Assessment data | Fayetteville, Arkansas renter households | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Share of occupied housing units occupied by renters in 2024 | 58percent approximate | Draft released June-July 2026; incorporates 2026 Housing Assessment data | Fayetteville, Arkansas | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Rental vacancy rate in 2024 after sustained housing production | 3.9percent | Draft released June-July 2026; incorporates 2026 Housing Assessment data | Fayetteville, Arkansas rental housing | Used in scoring | [8] |
| University of Arkansas Fall 2025 enrollment | 34,161students | Fall 2025, Spring 2026, Summer I 2026, and Summer II 2025 enrollment updates | University of Arkansas, Fayetteville campus | Supports modeled relationship | [9] |
| University of Arkansas summer enrollment snapshots compared with regular-term enrollment | summer ii 2025: 4,152; summer i 2026: 9,383; spring 2026: 32,163; fall 2025: 34,161students | Fall 2025, Spring 2026, Summer I 2026, and Summer II 2025 enrollment updates | University of Arkansas, Fayetteville campus | Conditional relationship | [9] |
| Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers metropolitan unemployment rate in May 2026 compared with the United States | fayetteville metro preliminary: 3; united states: 4.3percent | Labor force through May 2026; nonfarm employment through June 2026 preliminary | Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO with national benchmark | Used in scoring | [10] [12] |
| Metropolitan nonfarm employment and 12-month change in June 2026 | total nonfarm thousands: 308.6; twelve month change percent: 2.9thousands of jobs and percent | Labor force through May 2026; nonfarm employment through June 2026 preliminary | Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Metropolitan mean wages and employment concentrations for overlapping operating labor groups | all occupations: fayetteville metro: 28.63, united states: 32.66; food preparation and serving: fayetteville metro: 15.03; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: fayetteville metro: 16.59; transportation and material moving: fayetteville metro: 21.38, united states: 23.44, employment share percent: 10.1, national share percent: 8.9; heavy and tractor trailer truck drivers: employment: 7,570, location quotient: 2.11, mean hourly wage: 27.12usd per hour and employment metrics | May 2024 | Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, Arkansas | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Commercial permit and plan-review fee structure | commercial building permit per 1000 valuation usd: 6.32; minimum permit usd: 55; plan review percent of permit fee: 50; craft education per 1000 valuation usd: 0.5; design build fee usd: 1,400; work without permit: triple permit fee, minimum USD 250usd and percent | Current fee schedule accessed August 2026 | City of Fayetteville, Arkansas | Context only | [13] [4] [5] |
| Nonresidential water and wastewater impact fees by meter size | 5 8 x 3 4 inch total usd: 1,843; 1 inch total usd: 4,608; 1 5 inch total usd: 9,215; 2 inch total usd: 14,744; 3 inch total usd: 29,488; 4 inch total usd: 46,075; 6 inch total usd: 92,150; 8 inch total usd: 147,440; additional values omittedusd | Current fee schedule accessed August 2026 | City of Fayetteville nonresidential water and wastewater impact-fee schedule | Context only | [13] |
| Approved water and sewer capital program and named system needs | investment usd: 150,500,000; named projects: East Side Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrades, critical repairs to the 36-inch transmission line from Beaver Water District to downtown Fayetteville, critical storage-tank improvements, replacement of aging water and sewer lines; implementation: phased over multiple years with sequencing intended to limit service disruptionsusd and project scope | 2026 approved bond program; projects phased over multiple years | Fayetteville water and sewer system | Context only | [14] [15] [4] |
| 71B Urban Corridor rezoning allows housing and commercial uses without requiring redevelopment | urban corridor district approved: 2024-09-17; corridor rezoning approved: 2024-10-15; effective date: 2024-11-15; mixed housing and commercial use allowed: yes; redevelopment required: nozoning status and dates | Urban Corridor district approved September 17, 2024; 71B rezoning effective November 15, 2024 | 71B corridor, Fayetteville, Arkansas | Conditional relationship | [16] [3] [5] |
| Maple Street catalyst project is under construction with completion expected in 2026 | corridor: West Maple Street, Gregg Avenue to Garland Avenue / Razorback Greenway connection; current status: under construction; estimated completion year: 2,026; work elements: lane reconfiguration, protected bicycle facilities, pedestrian improvements, drainage and pavement workproject status | Program status updated May 12, 2026 | West Maple Street near the University of Arkansas | Conditional relationship | [17] [18] |
| Other supplied corridor-disruption claims are not all active construction | gregg avenue: conceptual designs complete as of May 28, 2026; joyce boulevard: design underway; construction expected 2027; mission viewpoint to rush: completed; continuation toward Maple depends on fundingproject status | Program status updated May 12, 2026 | Gregg Avenue, Joyce Boulevard, and Mission Boulevard, Fayetteville | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| National Register historic districts do not impose additional regulation on private property in Fayetteville | national register districts: 11; national register additional private property regulations: no; local ordinance districts: White Hangar at Drake Fielddistricts and regulatory scope | Current program and district status accessed August 2026 | Fayetteville, Arkansas historic districts | Conditional relationship | [19] [5] |
| Commercial signage is subject to citywide technical sign rules and limited technical variances | wall sign limit per business per building: 2; wall sign limit per wall: 1; variance categories: setback, area, height, on-site location, other technical requirements; maximum variance percent of code requirement: 15; sign permit fee usd: 48; sign variance filing fee usd: 208rules and fees | Current code accessed August 2026; online code reflects 2026 ordinances | City of Fayetteville, Arkansas | Conditional relationship | [20] [13] |
| City bidding and RFP/RFQ opportunities use a formal electronic procurement process | electronic bidding: yes; vendor registration for bids rfps rfqs: required by vendor-registration page; selection committee contact during rfp rfq: prohibited until committee vote; bid terms: vary by solicitationprocess requirements | Current procurement process accessed August 2026 | City of Fayetteville procurement | Supports modeled relationship | [21] [22] |
| Northwest Arkansas late-2025 commercial real-estate vacancy and rent indicators | industrial vacancy percent: 6.4; industrial average rent usd per sqft: 9.6; retail vacancy percent: 3.2; retail average rent usd per sqft: 19.76; office vacancy percent: 4.6percent and usd per square foot | End of 2025 commercial real-estate conditions reported from Cushman & Wakefield Sage Partners | Northwest Arkansas | Context only | [23] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects 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, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors reached 71.38 after target-market demand +1.4 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.
- 1Franchise-to-city operating-fit scoring modelInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Valid city JSON exampleInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Utility Delta Audit: Structural Inefficiencies and CapEx Traps in Key U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: 71B Urban Corridor rezoning allows housing and commercial uses without requiring redevelopment
- 4Forensic Audit Report: Municipal Deal-Killer Constraints and Structural Capital ToxicityInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Commercial permit and plan-review fee structure and Approved water and sewer capital program and named system needs
- 5Franchise data - remake - aug(10).csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Commercial permit and plan-review fee structure, 71B Urban Corridor rezoning allows housing and commercial uses without requiring redevelopment, and National Register historic districts do not impose additional regulation on private property in Fayetteville
- 6QuickFacts: Fayetteville city, Arkansas
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 and Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 1, 2025
- 7Housing
Used for: Household formation documented by the 2026 Housing Assessment since 2019
- 82026-2030 Consolidated Plan and 2026 Annual Action Plan Draft
Used for: Household formation documented by the 2026 Housing Assessment since 2019, Renter households estimated to be housing cost-burdened in 2024, Share of occupied housing units occupied by renters in 2024, and Rental vacancy rate in 2024 after sustained housing production
- 9Office of Strategic Analytics & Insights
Used for: University of Arkansas Fall 2025 enrollment and University of Arkansas summer enrollment snapshots compared with regular-term enrollment
- 10Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO Economy at a Glance
Used for: Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers metropolitan unemployment rate in May 2026 compared with the United States and Metropolitan nonfarm employment and 12-month change in June 2026
- 11Occupational Employment and Wages in Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers — May 2024
Used for: Metropolitan mean wages and employment concentrations for overlapping operating labor groups
- 12The Employment Situation — May 2026
Used for: Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers metropolitan unemployment rate in May 2026 compared with the United States
- 13Fees
Used for: Commercial permit and plan-review fee structure, Nonresidential water and wastewater impact fees by meter size, and Commercial signage is subject to citywide technical sign rules and limited technical variances
- 142026 Bond Question #2 - Water and Sewer Infrastructure
Used for: Approved water and sewer capital program and named system needs
- 152026 Bond Information
Used for: Approved water and sewer capital program and named system needs
- 1671B Rezoning Project
Used for: 71B Urban Corridor rezoning allows housing and commercial uses without requiring redevelopment
- 17Safe Streets and Roads for All
Used for: Maple Street catalyst project is under construction with completion expected in 2026 and Other supplied corridor-disruption claims are not all active construction
- 18Maple Street Improvements
Used for: Maple Street catalyst project is under construction with completion expected in 2026
- 19Historic Preservation
Used for: National Register historic districts do not impose additional regulation on private property in Fayetteville
- 20Title XV Unified Development Code, Chapter 174 Signs and §156.05 Sign Regulations
Used for: Commercial signage is subject to citywide technical sign rules and limited technical variances
- 21Procurement
Used for: City bidding and RFP/RFQ opportunities use a formal electronic procurement process
- 22Vendor Registration
Used for: City bidding and RFP/RFQ opportunities use a formal electronic procurement process
- 23Northwest Arkansas office vacancy rate among tightest in U.S.
Used for: Northwest Arkansas late-2025 commercial real-estate vacancy and rent indicators
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.