69.7 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Savannah, Georgia
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Savannah, Georgia. Healthcare institutional 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
24Sources used
14Primary sources
25Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
0.7 points average among 6 affected concepts
0.5 points average reduction among 10 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 12 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Savannah, Georgia
City Wide, FASTSIGNS, and ZOOM DRAIN 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 0.7 points on average. Broad labor scarcity was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.5 points on average. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing healthcare institutional service demand moved it from #1 to #10 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 | 71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Savannah, Georgia
Large Savannah hospital campuses support institutional facility-service demand
This relationship affected 6 concepts and added 0.7 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue in 2022: 3,085,822,000 usd. [4] [11]
Savannah-area unemployment below the national rate indicates broad labor-market tightness
This relationship affected 10 concepts and reduced 0.5 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Selected Savannah-area frontline and service occupational mean hourly wages in May 2025: food preparation and serving related: 15.41; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: 17.23; healthcare support: 18.2; laborers freight stock material movers hand: 19.71; industrial truck and tractor operators: 21.12 usd per hour mean. [7] [6]
Savannah-area tourism was estimated at 12.9 million visitors and about $4.1 billion in visitor spending in 2025
The tourism totals are area-level measures and should not be converted into uniform citywide walk-in demand. Savannah's Historic Landmark District is a specifically managed tourism and commerce hub, while commercial real-estate and curb/vehicle conditions vary by submarket. Fixed-location concepts therefore require site-level visitor flow, daypart, parking, and trade-area evidence before tourism can be scored as walk-in demand. [8] [9] [10] [14] [15] [16]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large Savannah hospital campuses support institutional facility-service demand1 modeled effect
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
Nearly half of Savannah housing units were built before 1970, supporting recurring age-related repair and replacement demand1 modeled effect
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Savannah-area unemployment below the national rate indicates broad labor-market tightness1 modeled effect
Broad labor scarcityLabor and staffing friction
Downtown freight-zone, commercial-decal, and large-vehicle rules constrain service and delivery routing1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
Historic and special sign districts can require site-specific signage and exterior prototype adaptation1 modeled effect
Signage and prototype adaptation burdenRegulatory and operating friction
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 alignment71.1
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.5 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 |
| +1.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.12 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
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 71.12 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#10
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 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 |
| +0.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Signage and prototype adaptation burden EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.39 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 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 | 70.39 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
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
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#8
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.39 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| 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 | 70.39 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
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
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#6
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.38 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 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| 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 | 70.38 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
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
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#7
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.33 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | 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 | 70.33 |
| 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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#9
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.2 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.17 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| 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 | 70.17 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#12
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.16 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| 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 | 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 | 70.16 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#10
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 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 |
| +0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 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
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -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 | 70.12 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#12
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.2 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 |
| +0.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.06 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 70.06 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#11
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
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 |
| Net local movement | -0.09 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 69.91 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#13
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.20 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 |
| 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 | 69.80 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.3 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 |
| -1.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +1.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.21 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.3 |
| 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 | 69.79 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#14
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +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 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| 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 | 69.70 |
| 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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.1
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
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 |
| Net local movement | -0.92 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 69.08 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- 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 City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 71.12 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.1 |
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, 13 concepts changed position. City Wide moved from #1 to #10, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted6 of 14
Average among affected+0.7 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank13
What we observed
- Health Care And Social Assistance Receipts/revenue In 20223,085,822,000 usd
- Combined Staffed Bed Capacity Stated For St. Joseph's Hospital And Candler Hospitalst joseph hospital beds: 330; candler hospital beds: 384; combined beds: 714
- Memorial Health Announced Savannah Patient Tower Expansioninvestment usd: 280,000,000; planned operational beds: 90; planned parking spaces: 1,007 mixed
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.5 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.1 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.6 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.6 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.2 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #3 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.3 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Savannah Housing Units By Year Built From 2024 Acs 5 Year Estimatestotal units: 68,174; built 1939 or earlier: 11,065; built 1940 1949: 4,830; built 1950 1959: 9,689; built 1960 1969: 7,434; built 1970 1979: 7,311; built 1980 1989: 7,377; built 1990 1999: 3,809; additional values omitted housing units
- Share Of Savannah Housing Stock Built Before 197048.4 percent of housing units
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.4 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.4 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.4 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.3 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.3 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, 13 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #12 to #2, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted10 of 14
Average among affected-0.5 pts
Average across all concepts-0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank13
What we observed
- Savannah Metropolitan Area Unemployment Rate In June 20263.1 percent not seasonally adjusted
- U.s. Unemployment Rate In June 2026 On The Same Bls Comparison Basis4.4 percent not seasonally adjusted
- Selected Savannah Area Frontline And Service Occupational Mean Hourly Wages In May 2025food preparation and serving related: 15.41; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: 17.23; healthcare support: 18.2; laborers freight stock material movers hand: 19.71; industrial truck and tractor operators: 21.12 usd per hour mean
Concepts challenged most
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-1.3 pts
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.9 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-0.7 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.6 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
-0.4 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- 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 WideHighly sensitive · tested #1–#10
#2 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #2–#8
#3 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #1–#6
#4 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #2–#7
#5 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #3–#9
#6 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #4–#12
#7 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #5–#10
#8 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #3–#12
#9 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #4–#11
#10 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #6–#13
#11 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #5–#12
#12 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#14
#13 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #9–#13
#14 Workout AnytimeStable · 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: [4] [8] [10] [9] [11] [12] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [22] [23] [1]Competitive environment: [24] [4] [8] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [6] [7] [8] [1] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [16] [17] [10] [3] [2]Real estate and site feasibility: [14] [13] [15] [20] [21] [22] [1] [2]Sales and customer acquisition: [24] [4] [8] [3]Referral ecosystem: [11] [12] [4] [6] [3]Territory quality: [14] [13] [15] [8] [10] [16] [17] [18] [22]Regulatory and operating friction: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [16] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +1.5 pts | — | -0.3 pts |
| #2 FASTSIGNS | +0.6 pts | — | -0.2 pts |
| #3 ZOOM DRAIN | — | +0.4 pts | — |
| #4 Mr. Rooter | — | +0.4 pts | — |
| #5 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.3 pts | — |
| #6 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | +0.2 pts | — |
| #7 Aire Serv | — | +0.4 pts | -0.2 pts |
| #8 HomeSmiles | +0.6 pts | — | -0.4 pts |
| #9 ActionCOACH | +0.2 pts | — | -0.1 pts |
| #10 Tiger Adjusters | — | — | -0.1 pts |
| #11 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.2 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.7 pts |
| #12 Jan-Pro International | +1.1 pts | — | -1.3 pts |
| #13 PuroClean | — | +0.3 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #14 Workout Anytime | — | — | -0.9 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, FASTSIGNS, ZOOM DRAIN 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 City Wide, FASTSIGNS, ZOOM DRAIN; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Savannah, Georgia
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.7Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Savannah, Georgia
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.7 to 69.8. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 69.8. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.3 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.6 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
- 69.7–69.8
- Category average
- 69.7
Rainbow International Restoration69.8
PuroClean69.7
Metric registry
The 25 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 149,440people | 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic census receipts and sales | Savannah, Georgia | Context only | [4] |
| Estimated households, 2020-2024 | 58,192households | 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic census receipts and sales | Savannah, Georgia | Context only | [4] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue in 2022 | 3,085,822,000usd | 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic census receipts and sales | Savannah, Georgia | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Transportation and warehousing receipts/revenue in 2022 | 1,325,299,000usd | 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic census receipts and sales | Savannah, Georgia | Context only | [4] |
| Accommodation and food services sales in 2022 | 1,386,611,000usd | 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic census receipts and sales | Savannah, Georgia | Context only | [4] |
| Estimated visitors to the Savannah area in 2025 | 12,900,000visitors approximate | Calendar year 2025; Tourism Economics impact study | Savannah area / Chatham County visitor economy | Conditional relationship | [8] |
| Estimated visitor spending in 2025 | 4,100,000,000usd approximate | Calendar year 2025; Tourism Economics impact study | Savannah area / Chatham County visitor economy | Supports research conclusion | [8] |
| Visitor-supported employment in 2025 | direct jobs: 27,680; total jobs: 40,780jobs approximate | Calendar year 2025; Tourism Economics impact study | Chatham County, Georgia | Context only | [8] |
| Savannah housing units by year built from 2024 ACS 5-Year Estimates | total units: 68,174; built 1939 or earlier: 11,065; built 1940 1949: 4,830; built 1950 1959: 9,689; built 1960 1969: 7,434; built 1970 1979: 7,311; built 1980 1989: 7,377; built 1990 1999: 3,809; additional values omittedhousing units | 2024 ACS 5-Year Estimates and 2026 planning update | Savannah, Georgia | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Share of Savannah housing stock built before 1970 | 48.4percent of housing units | 2024 ACS 5-Year Estimates and 2026 planning update | Savannah, Georgia | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Savannah metropolitan-area unemployment rate in June 2026 | 3.1percent not seasonally adjusted | Labor force and payroll employment through June 2026; wages through May 2025 | Savannah, Georgia area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| U.S. unemployment rate in June 2026 on the same BLS comparison basis | 4.4percent not seasonally adjusted | Labor force and payroll employment through June 2026; wages through May 2025 | United States | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Transportation and material moving occupations as a share of Savannah-area employment in May 2025 | 13.1percent of msa employment | May 2025 | Savannah, Georgia MSA | Context only | [7] |
| Selected Savannah-area frontline and service occupational mean hourly wages in May 2025 | food preparation and serving related: 15.41; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: 17.23; healthcare support: 18.2; laborers freight stock material movers hand: 19.71; industrial truck and tractor operators: 21.12usd per hour mean | May 2025 | Savannah, Georgia MSA | Used in scoring | [7] [6] |
| Combined staffed bed capacity stated for St. Joseph's Hospital and Candler Hospital | st joseph hospital beds: 330; candler hospital beds: 384; combined beds: 714beds | Current facilities accessed August 2026 | Savannah, Georgia | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Memorial Health announced Savannah patient-tower expansion | investment usd: 280,000,000; planned operational beds: 90; planned parking spaces: 1,007mixed | Announced March 2025; expansion project status should be rechecked | Memorial Health Waters Avenue campus, Savannah | Used in scoring | [12] |
| Savannah industrial overall vacancy and net asking rent in Q2 2026 | vacancy rate percent: 10.5; overall net asking rent usd psf year: 6.68; ytd absorption sqft: 1,600,000mixed | Q2 2026 | Savannah industrial market | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| Selected Savannah industrial submarket vacancy rates in Q1 2026 | downtown eastside percent: 0.3; highway 21 percent: 21.3; i16 west percent: 5.6; i95 south percent: 24.5; savannah total percent: 9.9vacancy rate percent | Q1 2026 | Savannah industrial market named submarkets | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| Savannah office CBD and non-CBD vacancy and asking rents in Q2 2026 | cbd historic downtown: vacancy percent: 3.4, asking rent usd psf year: 34.12; greater savannah non cbd: vacancy percent: 3.9, asking rent usd psf year: 34.38; msa total: vacancy percent: 3.8, asking rent usd psf year: 34.35mixed | Q2 2026 | Savannah office market | Conditional relationship | [15] |
| Commercial decal and loading-zone rules for Savannah service and delivery vehicles in 2026 | commercial decal annual usd: 200; meter permit usd per vehicle: 50; freight zone max minutes: 30; meter permit normal max hours: 2mixed | Calendar year 2026 | City of Savannah marked freight zones, lanes, alleys, and eligible metered spaces | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| Large-commercial-vehicle stopping and parking restriction in the downtown historic area | vehicle length threshold feet: 34; permit limit per calendar year: 24; fine usd: 500; restricted delivery windows: 07:00-09:00, 12:00-13:00, 16:00-18:00mixed | Current ordinance framework accessed August 2026 | Downtown area bounded by River Street, East Broad Street, Gaston Street, and Martin Luther King Jr | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| Savannah sign rules vary by permit status, street class, special sign district, and historic-district location | zoning section: 9.9; special sign districts present: yes; historic district review contact: Chatham County-Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commissionrule status | Current zoning guidance accessed August 2026 | Savannah, Georgia | Conditional relationship | [18] [19] |
| Savannah development impact fees are charged at 100% of adopted rates | effective date: 2025-07-01; assessment level percent: 100rule status | 100% adopted rates effective July 1, 2025; current page accessed August 2026 | City of Savannah development subject to impact fees | Context only | [20] |
| Selected adopted Savannah impact fee rates by land use | fast food restaurant usd per sqft: 18.0902; fast casual restaurant usd per sqft: 6.2703; general office usd per sqft: 3.0636; general light industrial usd per sqft: 1.4444; specialty trade contractor usd per sqft: 2.5613; shopping center usd per sqft: 2.5675usd per gross square foot | Adopted schedule charged at 100% beginning July 1, 2025 | City of Savannah impact-fee schedule | Context only | [21] [20] |
| Savannah 2025 Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance includes a two-foot freeboard requirement and project-specific floodplain review | freeboard feet: 2; ae zone worksheet required for new or substantially improved construction: yes; substantial improvement rule percent: 50mixed | Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance effective after December 31, 2024; current guidance accessed August 2026 | City of Savannah properties and projects subject to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance | Context only | [22] [23] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects that apply without an unresolved site, territory, customer, or project gate.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 71.12 after target-market demand +1.5 pts and labor and staffing friction -0.3 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Franchise Opportunities in Tier-1 U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Forensic Audit of Municipal Deal-Killers and Structural ConstraintsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - modInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4QuickFacts: Savannah city, Georgia
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Estimated households, 2020-2024, Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue in 2022, Transportation and warehousing receipts/revenue in 2022, and Accommodation and food services sales in 2022
- 5Savannah-Chatham County Comprehensive Plan 2040-2045 Update - Draft
Used for: Savannah housing units by year built from 2024 ACS 5-Year Estimates and Share of Savannah housing stock built before 1970
- 6Savannah, GA, Area Economic Summary
Used for: Savannah metropolitan-area unemployment rate in June 2026, U.S. unemployment rate in June 2026 on the same BLS comparison basis, and Selected Savannah-area frontline and service occupational mean hourly wages in May 2025
- 7Occupational Employment and Wages in Savannah, GA - May 2025
Used for: Transportation and material moving occupations as a share of Savannah-area employment in May 2025 and Selected Savannah-area frontline and service occupational mean hourly wages in May 2025
- 8Savannah's Visitor Economy Demonstrates Stability and Resilience in 2025
Used for: Estimated visitors to the Savannah area in 2025, Estimated visitor spending in 2025, and Visitor-supported employment in 2025
- 9
- 10
- 11Healthcare facilities in the St. Joseph's/Candler Healthcare System
Used for: Combined staffed bed capacity stated for St. Joseph's Hospital and Candler Hospital
- 12Memorial Health to build new $280 million patient care tower
Used for: Memorial Health announced Savannah patient-tower expansion
- 13Savannah, GA Industrial MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Savannah industrial overall vacancy and net asking rent in Q2 2026
- 14Savannah, GA Industrial MarketBeat Q1 2026
Used for: Selected Savannah industrial submarket vacancy rates in Q1 2026
- 15Savannah, GA Office MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Savannah office CBD and non-CBD vacancy and asking rents in Q2 2026
- 162026 Commercial Decal Renewal Guidelines
Used for: Commercial decal and loading-zone rules for Savannah service and delivery vehicles in 2026
- 17Large Commercial Vehicle Delivery Restrictions Ordinance
Used for: Large-commercial-vehicle stopping and parking restriction in the downtown historic area
- 18Sign Information
Used for: Savannah sign rules vary by permit status, street class, special sign district, and historic-district location
- 192026 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Certificates of Appropriateness and Historic Review
Used for: Savannah sign rules vary by permit status, street class, special sign district, and historic-district location
- 20Impact Fees
Used for: Savannah development impact fees are charged at 100% of adopted rates and Selected adopted Savannah impact fee rates by land use
- 21Maximum Impact Fee Schedule
Used for: Selected adopted Savannah impact fee rates by land use
- 22Flood Protection Codes and Forms
Used for: Savannah 2025 Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance includes a two-foot freeboard requirement and project-specific floodplain review
- 23Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
Used for: Savannah 2025 Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance includes a two-foot freeboard requirement and project-specific floodplain review
- 24
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.