68.9 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Asheville, North Carolina
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Asheville, North Carolina. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Service-base space 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
20Local sources used
2Primary local sources
27Local 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
0.9 points average among 11 affected concepts
0.8 points average reduction among 8 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 12 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Asheville, North Carolina
City Wide, ActionCOACH, and FASTSIGNS produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Local business demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 10 exposed concepts, adding 0.7 points on average. One important asymmetry was that the same local condition supported replacement and repair demand while also creating legacy-system service complexity. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 72.7Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 71.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.1 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.0 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.1 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 69.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsReferral ecosystem | -1.0 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 69.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.7 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 69.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.5 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Asheville, North Carolina
City business base and large service-sector economy support local commercial demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 0.7 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Accommodation and food services sales in 2022: 1,359,582,000 usd. [4]
A large pre-1980 housing share supports repair and replacement demand while increasing older-system complexity
The same local condition created complementary effects: replacement and repair demand supported exposed concepts while legacy-system service complexity constrained others. [18] [1] [19]
Tight industrial vacancy and thin smaller-bay inventory constrain service-base options
This relationship affected 8 concepts and reduced 0.8 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Spring 2026 Asheville and Western North Carolina industrial market snapshot: inventory sqft: 36,900,000; vacancy percent: 4; availability percent: 5.8; average asking rent usd per sqft: 10.34; active pipeline sqft: 457,850 mixed. [9] [1]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
City business base and large service-sector economy support local commercial demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
A large pre-1980 housing share supports repair and replacement demand while increasing older-system complexity1 local fact · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
Low metropolitan unemployment creates broad staffing competition for labor-intensive operating models1 modeled effect
Broad labor scarcityLabor and staffing friction
Large healthcare activity supports institutional service demand and creates selective overlap in local hiring3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Health care and social assistance receipts or revenue in 2022: 3,993,893,000 usd [4]
- Healthcare practitioners and technical employment share and mean hourly wage in May 2025: employment share percent: 8.2; mean hourly wage usd: 56.17 mixed [6]
- Mission Hospital additional pay-increase investment covering a majority of full-time, part-time, and PRN colleagues: 10,000,000 usd minimum announced [7]
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
Healthcare-overlap labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
Tight industrial vacancy and thin smaller-bay inventory constrain service-base options1 modeled effect
Service-base space scarcityReal estate and site feasibility
I-26 Connector construction creates a multi-year routing condition on a major Asheville corridor1 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Local historic districts add design review and Certificate of Appropriateness requirements for exterior work including signage1 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 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.7
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +2.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.4 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.7 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.74 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not 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 applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.7 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.74 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.8
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +1.3 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 | +1.3 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.77 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 | +1.3 |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.77 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#3
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +1.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.1 pts Real estate and site feasibility
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 | +1.7 pts | |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.1 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 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 | +0.78 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.7 |
| 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 | -1.1 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.78 |
| 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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#9
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +2.0 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.4 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 | +2.0 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.74 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 | +2.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.2 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.74 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#14
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.2 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.72 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 | +1.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | -0.5 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.72 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#6
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: 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 |
| +0.1 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption 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 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 | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 70.20 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- 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 +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#8
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
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 | +0.08 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 | +0.2 |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 70.08 |
| 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
- Adequate
- 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 +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#9
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -1.0 pts Real estate and site feasibility
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.0 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.32 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| 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 | -1.0 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.68 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#10
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.7 pts Real estate and site feasibility
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.7 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.47 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| 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 | -0.7 |
| 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 | 69.53 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#12
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.2 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.5 pts Real estate and site feasibility
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.49 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| 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 | -0.5 |
| 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 | 69.51 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#11
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.0
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.0 pts Real estate and site feasibility
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.0 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.97 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| 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 | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.0 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.03 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#14
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.0
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.0 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 |
| -1.0 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.03 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 applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.0 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.97 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- 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 -1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#14
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.9
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -1.0 pts Real estate and site feasibility
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.0 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.9 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -1.08 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 | +0.2 |
| 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 | -1.0 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.92 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.9
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -1.0 pts Real estate and site feasibility
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.0 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -1.10 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.0 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.90 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not 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 applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.7 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.74 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectPositive local support
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 11 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 13 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #4 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted11 of 14
Average among affected+0.9 pts
Average across all concepts+0.7 pts
Concepts changing rank13
What we observed
- All Employer Firms In Reference Year 20224,780 employer firms
- Health Care And Social Assistance Receipts Or Revenue In 20223,993,893,000 usd
- Accommodation And Food Services Sales In 20221,359,582,000 usd
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+2.4 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+2.0 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+1.7 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+1.3 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.2 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, 6 concepts changed position. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors moved from #6 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.2 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank6
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.3 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.3 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.3 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.2 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.2 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 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. Workout Anytime moved from #12 to #8, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected-0.5 pts
Average across all concepts-0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank11
What we observed
- Metropolitan Unemployment Rate In June 20263.2 percent
- Food Preparation And Serving Employment Share And Mean Hourly Wage In May 2025employment share percent: 10.8; mean hourly wage usd: 17 mixed
- Building And Grounds Cleaning And Maintenance Mean Hourly Wage In May 202518.17 usd per hour
Concepts challenged most
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-1.4 pts
Workout AnytimeFitness
-1.0 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-0.9 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.8 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
-0.5 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Real estate and site feasibility
We applied site and operating-base constraints only to concepts requiring comparable storefront, production, warehouse, or fleet space.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #8 to #5, 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 rank12
What we observed
- Spring 2026 Asheville And Western North Carolina Industrial Market Snapshotinventory sqft: 36,900,000; vacancy percent: 4; availability percent: 5.8; average asking rent usd per sqft: 10.34; active pipeline sqft: 457,850 mixed
- Industry Report Describes Thin Inventory Depth For Modern Smaller Bay And Functional Infill Industrial Productthin inventory depth qualitative
Concepts challenged most
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-1.1 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.0 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-1.0 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.0 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-1.0 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Referral ecosystem
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #8 to #10, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank7
What we observed
- All Employer Firms In Reference Year 20224,780 employer firms
- Health Care And Social Assistance Receipts Or Revenue In 20223,993,893,000 usd
- Healthcare Practitioners And Technical Employment Share And Mean Hourly Wage In May 2025employment share percent: 8.2; mean hourly wage usd: 56.17 mixed
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.7 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.6 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.5 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.5 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideStable · tested #1–#2
#2 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #1–#3
#3 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #2–#9
#4 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#14
#5 HomeSmilesModerately sensitive · tested #4–#6
#6 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #3–#8
#7 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #4–#9
#8 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #6–#10
#9 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #7–#12
#10 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #6–#11
#11 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #10–#14
#12 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #8–#14
#13 Rainbow International RestorationModerately sensitive · tested #10–#13
#14 PuroCleanModerately sensitive · tested #11–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Score-changing factors
Factors that changed the calculated scores
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] [5] [16] [17] [20] [1] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [19] [18] [12] [1] [3]Competitive environment: [4] [3] [9]Labor and staffing friction: [5] [6] [7] [8] [2] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [10] [11] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [9] [15] [1] [2]Sales and customer acquisition: [4] [16] [3]Referral ecosystem: [4] [6] [20] [7]Territory quality: [12] [13] [10] [3] [1]Regulatory and operating friction: [12] [13] [14] [15] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Real estate and site feasibility | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +2.4 pts | — | -0.4 pts | — | +0.7 pts |
| #2 ActionCOACH | +1.3 pts | — | -0.1 pts | — | +0.6 pts |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +1.7 pts | — | -0.2 pts | -1.1 pts | +0.3 pts |
| #4 Jan-Pro International | +2.0 pts | — | -1.4 pts | — | +0.2 pts |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +1.2 pts | — | -0.5 pts | -0.5 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #6 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.1 pts | +0.1 pts | — | — | — |
| #7 Tiger Adjusters | +0.2 pts | — | -0.1 pts | — | — |
| #8 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.3 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.2 pts | -1.0 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #9 Mr. Rooter | +0.2 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.2 pts | -0.7 pts | — |
| #10 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.2 pts | -0.3 pts | -0.5 pts | — |
| #11 Aire Serv | +0.2 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.5 pts | -1.0 pts | — |
| #12 Workout Anytime | — | — | -1.0 pts | — | — |
| #13 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.1 pts | +0.2 pts | -0.9 pts | -1.0 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #14 PuroClean | — | +0.2 pts | -0.8 pts | -1.0 pts | +0.5 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, ActionCOACH, FASTSIGNS led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to real estate and site feasibility. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for FASTSIGNS, Jan-Pro International, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Asheville, North Carolina
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
68.9Limited comparison: Restoration franchise opportunities assessed in Asheville, North Carolina
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 68.9 to 68.9. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 68.9. Referral ecosystem added 0.5 points on average among the affected concepts. Real estate and site feasibility reduced the exposed concepts by 1 point on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.0-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 68.9–68.9
- Category average
- 68.9
Rainbow International Restoration68.9
PuroClean68.9
Metric registry
The 27 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 | 93,523people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census business measures | Asheville, North Carolina | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | -1.3percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census business measures | Asheville, North Carolina | Context only | [4] |
| Households in the 2020-2024 QuickFacts period | 37,394households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census business measures | Asheville, North Carolina | Context only | [4] |
| All employer firms in reference year 2022 | 4,780employer firms | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census business measures | Asheville, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts or revenue in 2022 | 3,993,893,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census business measures | Asheville, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Accommodation and food services sales in 2022 | 1,359,582,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census business measures | Asheville, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Median household income in 2024 dollars | 71,102usd per year | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census business measures | Asheville, North Carolina | Context only | [4] |
| Median value of owner-occupied housing units | 440,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census business measures | Asheville, North Carolina | Context only | [4] |
| Share of Asheville housing reported as built before 1980 in the Affordable Housing Plan analysis | 54percent of housing | Affordable Housing Plan analysis presented in March 2024 | Asheville, North Carolina | Supports modeled relationship | [19] [18] [1] |
| Metropolitan unemployment rate in June 2026 | 3.2percent | Labor force and payroll employment through June 2026 | Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Food preparation and serving employment share and mean hourly wage in May 2025 | employment share percent: 10.8; mean hourly wage usd: 17mixed | May 2025 | Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance mean hourly wage in May 2025 | 18.17usd per hour | May 2025 | Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Healthcare practitioners and technical employment share and mean hourly wage in May 2025 | employment share percent: 8.2; mean hourly wage usd: 56.17mixed | May 2025 | Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Mission Hospital additional pay-increase investment covering a majority of full-time, part-time, and PRN colleagues | 10,000,000usd minimum announced | Pay increases effective May 17, 2026 | Mission Hospital, Asheville | Supports modeled relationship | [7] |
| Accepted offers in Mission Hospital's 100-day campaign, including environmental services and other clinical and non-clinical roles | 200accepted offers more than | Hiring campaign in late 2025 | Mission Hospital, Asheville | Supports modeled relationship | [8] |
| Spring 2026 Asheville and Western North Carolina industrial market snapshot | inventory sqft: 36,900,000; vacancy percent: 4; availability percent: 5.8; average asking rent usd per sqft: 10.34; active pipeline sqft: 457,850mixed | Spring 2026 | Asheville and Western North Carolina industrial market | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Industry report describes thin inventory depth for modern smaller-bay and functional infill industrial product | thin inventory depthqualitative | Spring 2026 | Asheville and Western North Carolina industrial market | Used in scoring | [9] [1] |
| I-26 Connector construction is underway; estimated project cost and completion horizon | estimated cost usd: 1,800,000,000; construction status: underway; expected completion: late 2031mixed | Construction underway in April 2026; expected overall completion late 2031 | I-26/I-240 Connector corridor, Asheville | Conditional relationship | [10] |
| Temporary causeway work supports four new I-26/I-240 bridges and is expected to support bridge construction through 2029 | bridge count: 4; causeway work start: 2026; bridge support through: 2029mixed | Causeway work beginning in 2026 and supporting bridge construction through 2029 | French Broad River I-26/I-240 crossing, Asheville | Conditional relationship | [11] |
| Floodplain rebuilding rules clarify elevation two feet above base flood elevation, a one-year substantial-damage lookback, and a historic-structure variance pathway | required freeboard feet: 2; substantial damage lookback years: 1; historic variance available: yesmixed | Amendments adopted January 28, 2025 and current recovery permitting context | Identified flood hazard areas within Asheville city limits | Conditional relationship | [12] [3] |
| Properties within Asheville Local Historic Districts are subject to design review | Albemarle Park, Biltmore Village, Montford, St. Dunstan'snamed local historic districts | Page reviewed April 14, 2026 | Asheville Local Historic Districts | Conditional relationship | [13] [3] |
| Minor historic design work can include signage and may be staff-reviewed; major work is reviewed by the Historic Resources Commission | minor work example: signage; minor work typical issue time: within 10 business days when complete; major work review: monthly HRC meeting; certificate of appropriateness required: yesmixed | Page reviewed May 19, 2026 | Local historic districts and local landmarks in Asheville | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| Nonresidential Sewer System Development Fees by meter size | 1 inch usd: 8,919; 2 inch usd: 28,542; 3 inch usd: 57,084; 4 inch usd: 89,194; 6 inch usd: 178,387usd by meter size | Effective July 1, 2025; FY2026 | Metropolitan Sewerage District service territory including Asheville | Context only | [15] [2] |
| Direct visitor spending in Buncombe County in 2024 | 2,650,000,000usd | Calendar year 2024 | Buncombe County, North Carolina | Supports research conclusion | [16] |
| Travel and hospitality employment in Buncombe County in 2024 | 18,377jobs | Calendar year 2024 | Buncombe County, North Carolina | Supports research conclusion | [16] |
| Projected visitor-spending change after Helene recovery | 2025 percent change: 3.5; 2026 percent change: 5.2percent change forecast | Early 2025 travel conditions and FY2025-FY2026 forecast | Asheville and Buncombe County travel market | Context only | [17] |
| UNC Asheville Spring 2025 student headcount | 2,801students | Spring 2025 | University of North Carolina Asheville | Used in scoring | [20] [3] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects whose applicability is established at the report’s current geographic and operating scope.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 72.74 after target-market demand +2.4 pts, referral ecosystem +0.7 pts, and labor and staffing friction -0.4 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. Reports are checked for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability before publication.
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
Local evidence supporting this report
The city page keeps the local sources used for its visible findings and metrics. Franchise-source provenance stays with the underlying franchise research rather than being duplicated across every city page.
- 1Supplied multi-city structural franchise-opportunity research docketInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Share of Asheville housing reported as built before 1980 in the Affordable Housing Plan analysis and Industry report describes thin inventory depth for modern smaller-bay and functional infill industrial product
- 2Structural Constraints and Hidden Costs: A Forensic Interrogation of Municipal GeographiesInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Nonresidential Sewer System Development Fees by meter size
- 3Franchise data - remake - 142(6)Internal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Floodplain rebuilding rules clarify elevation two feet above base flood elevation, a one-year substantial-damage lookback, and a historic-structure variance pathway, Properties within Asheville Local Historic Districts are subject to design review, and UNC Asheville Spring 2025 student headcount
- 4QuickFacts: Asheville city, North Carolina
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households in the 2020-2024 QuickFacts period, All employer firms in reference year 2022, and Health care and social assistance receipts or revenue in 2022
- 5Asheville, NC Economy at a Glance
Used for: Metropolitan unemployment rate in June 2026
- 6Occupational Employment and Wages in Asheville, NC — May 2025
Used for: Food preparation and serving employment share and mean hourly wage in May 2025, Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance mean hourly wage in May 2025, and Healthcare practitioners and technical employment share and mean hourly wage in May 2025
- 7More than $10 million investment in pay increases made by Mission Hospital
Used for: Mission Hospital additional pay-increase investment covering a majority of full-time, part-time, and PRN colleagues
- 8Mission Hospital exceeds 100-day hiring goal in just 65 days
Used for: Accepted offers in Mission Hospital's 100-day campaign, including environmental services and other clinical and non-clinical roles
- 9Spring 2026 Asheville & WNC Industrial Outlook
Used for: Spring 2026 Asheville and Western North Carolina industrial market snapshot and Industry report describes thin inventory depth for modern smaller-bay and functional infill industrial product
- 10NCDOT Breaks Ground on I-26 Connector
Used for: I-26 Connector construction is underway; estimated project cost and completion horizon
- 11I-26 Connector Construction to Begin in French Broad River
Used for: Temporary causeway work supports four new I-26/I-240 bridges and is expected to support bridge construction through 2029
- 12City Council votes to approve text amendments to Asheville Flood Protection Ordinance
Used for: Floodplain rebuilding rules clarify elevation two feet above base flood elevation, a one-year substantial-damage lookback, and a historic-structure variance pathway
- 13Historic Districts and Design Standards
Used for: Properties within Asheville Local Historic Districts are subject to design review
- 14Design Review
Used for: Minor historic design work can include signage and may be staff-reviewed; major work is reviewed by the Historic Resources Commission
- 15Schedule of Rates, Fees, and Charges — FY2026
Used for: Nonresidential Sewer System Development Fees by meter size
- 162024 Economic Impact of Visitors to Buncombe County
Used for: Direct visitor spending in Buncombe County in 2024 and Travel and hospitality employment in Buncombe County in 2024
- 17March 2025 Travel & Hospitality Community Update
Used for: Projected visitor-spending change after Helene recovery
- 18City of Asheville announces the publication of the Affordable Housing Plan
Used for: Share of Asheville housing reported as built before 1980 in the Affordable Housing Plan analysis
- 19Desperately Seeking Affordable Housing
Used for: Share of Asheville housing reported as built before 1980 in the Affordable Housing Plan analysis
- 20UNC Asheville sees an increase in Spring 2025 semester enrollment, improvements in student retention
Used for: UNC Asheville Spring 2025 student headcount
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.