70.1 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Lubbock, Texas
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Lubbock, Texas. Household service demand was a leading positive mechanism.
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
21Sources used
15Primary sources
21Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
0.8 points average among 13 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 10 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Lubbock, Texas
HomeSmiles, City Wide, and Pillar To Post Home Inspectors produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Household service demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 8 exposed concepts, adding 0.8 points on average. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing university and government account demand moved it from #2 to #12 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 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.3 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 71.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.3 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Lubbock, Texas
Accelerated household formation and continued south/west home development support household-service demand
This relationship affected 8 concepts and added 0.8 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Household formation accelerated after 2020 in the Lubbock HMA: current households: 132,950; average annual household increase: 2,000; average annual growth percent: 1.6 households and percent. [7]
recurring-commercial-service
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was target-market demand, while the main constraint was property replacement-cycle demand. [11] [6] [7] [8] [9]
Lubbock sign code requires permits and imposes district- and facade-based limits that can require prototype adaptation
Scoring requires the actual site zoning district, frontage and tenant-facade dimensions, proposed sign package, and any applicable master sign plan or overlay. [16] [5]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Accelerated household formation and continued south/west home development support household-service demand1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
Texas Tech and a large government employment base support institution-oriented account demand1 modeled effect
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Broadway reconstruction creates temporary route, curb, loading, and access friction on a defined downtown corridor1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.3
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.3 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.3 pts | |
| Net local movement | +1.34 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | 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 | 71.34 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.3
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.3 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.31 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 | +1.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | 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 | 71.31 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#12
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +1.1 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.14 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 | +1.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | 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 | 71.14 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#9
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.0 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.96 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 | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | 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 | 70.96 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#14
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.88 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | 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 | 70.88 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#5
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.82 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | 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 | 70.82 |
| 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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#7
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.76 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 | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | 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 | 70.76 |
| 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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#8
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.7 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | 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 | 70.72 |
| 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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#8
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.6 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.63 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 included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | 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 | 70.63 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#9
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +0.6 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.60 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | 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 | 70.60 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#11
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.40 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | 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 | 70.40 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#11
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.29 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | 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 | 70.29 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.15 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 included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | 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 | 70.15 |
| 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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #13–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not 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 included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated HomeSmiles
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 | +1.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | 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 | 71.34 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.3 |
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 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 14 concepts changed position. HomeSmiles moved from #1 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected+0.8 pts
Average across all concepts+0.7 pts
Concepts changing rank14
What we observed
- Population Change From The April 2020 Estimate Base To July 1, 20256.2 percent
- Household Formation Accelerated After 2020 In The Lubbock Hmacurrent households: 132,950; average annual household increase: 2,000; average annual growth percent: 1.6 households and percent
- Recent New Home Development Is Concentrated In Southern And Western Lubbockhomes permitted 12 months ending november 2024: 1,975; forecast sales unit demand dec 2024 to dec 2027: 5,425; sales units under construction at forecast start: 710; city pattern: Recent development most prevalent in southern and western Lubbock; most forecast new-home developments expected in the city of Lubbock. units and geographic pattern
Concepts helped most
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.3 pts
City WideFacility management
+1.3 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+1.1 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.0 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.9 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Property replacement-cycle demandNo material score adjustment
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Labor and staffing frictionNo 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 HomeSmilesStable · tested #1–#2
#2 City WideHighly sensitive · tested #2–#12
#3 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #3–#9
#4 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #4–#14
#5 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #1–#5
#6 Mr. RooterStable · tested #6–#7
#7 Mister Sparky ElectricStable · tested #7–#8
#8 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #4–#8
#9 FASTSIGNSModerately sensitive · tested #6–#9
#10 Workout AnytimeStable · tested #10–#11
#11 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #5–#11
#12 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #3–#12
#13 Rainbow International RestorationStable · tested #13–#13
#14 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #10–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [6] [7] [8] [9] [11] [4] [5]Property replacement-cycle demand: [7] [19] [20] [4] [6]Competitive environment: [21] [6] [18] [5]Labor and staffing friction: [10] [11] [3] [4] [5]Transportation, routing, and parking: [15] [14] [17] [3] [5]Real estate and site feasibility: [18] [7] [17] [4] [5]Sales and customer acquisition: [9] [8] [21] [5]Referral ecosystem: [8] [9] [11] [5] [4]Territory quality: [7] [17] [15] [14] [18] [5]Regulatory and operating friction: [16] [12] [13] [17] [3] [5]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand |
|---|---|
| #1 HomeSmiles | +1.3 pts |
| #2 City Wide | +1.3 pts |
| #3 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +1.1 pts |
| #4 Jan-Pro International | +1.0 pts |
| #5 Aire Serv | +0.9 pts |
| #6 Mr. Rooter | +0.8 pts |
| #7 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.8 pts |
| #8 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.7 pts |
| #9 FASTSIGNS | +0.6 pts |
| #10 Workout Anytime | +0.6 pts |
| #11 ActionCOACH | +0.4 pts |
| #12 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts |
| #13 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.2 pts |
| #14 PuroClean | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
HomeSmiles, City Wide, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to property replacement-cycle demand. 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, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Jan-Pro International; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Lubbock, Texas
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.1Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Lubbock, Texas
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.0 to 70.2. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.2. Target-market demand added 0.1 points on average among the affected concepts.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.2-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.0–70.2
- Category average
- 70.1
Rainbow International Restoration70.2
PuroClean70.0
Metric registry
The 21 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 273,071people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 household, housing, income, and socioeconomic estimates | Lubbock, Texas | Context only | [6] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 1, 2025 | 6.2percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 household, housing, income, and socioeconomic estimates | Lubbock, Texas | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Estimated households in the 2020-2024 QuickFacts period | 107,086households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 household, housing, income, and socioeconomic estimates | Lubbock, Texas | Context only | [6] |
| Household formation accelerated after 2020 in the Lubbock HMA | current households: 132,950; average annual household increase: 2,000; average annual growth percent: 1.6households and percent | As of December 1, 2024; housing forecast through December 1, 2027 | Lubbock HMA: Crosby, Lubbock, and Lynn counties under HUD December 2024 definition | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Recent new-home development is concentrated in southern and western Lubbock | homes permitted 12 months ending november 2024: 1,975; forecast sales unit demand dec 2024 to dec 2027: 5,425; sales units under construction at forecast start: 710; city pattern: Recent development most prevalent in southern and western Lubbock; most forecast new-home developments expected in the city of Lubbock.units and geographic pattern | As of December 1, 2024; housing forecast through December 1, 2027 | City of Lubbock within the Lubbock HMA | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Texas Tech University fall 2025 12th-class-day enrollment | total students: 42,272; undergraduate students: 33,996; graduate students: 8,276students | Fall 2025 12th-class-day enrollment | Texas Tech University, Lubbock campus | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Government employment share of Lubbock MSA nonfarm employment in June 2026 | 23.3percent of nonfarm jobs | June 2026 labor force and nonfarm employment; data extracted August 13, 2026 | Lubbock, TX MSA under BLS 2026 definition | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Major franchise-relevant occupational groups in the Lubbock MSA did not show a broad wage premium versus the United States | all occupations lubbock hourly: 25.89; all occupations us hourly: 33.54; management lubbock hourly: 52; management us hourly: 69.84; office admin lubbock hourly: 20.51; office admin us hourly: 24.79; food prep lubbock hourly: 13.49; building grounds lubbock hourly: 15.6; additional values omittedmean hourly wage usd | May 2025 occupational employment and wage estimates | Lubbock, TX MSA under BLS 2026 definition | Context only | [10] |
| Lubbock MSA unemployment rate in June 2026 | 4.5percent | June 2026 labor force and nonfarm employment; data extracted August 13, 2026 | Lubbock, TX MSA | Context only | [11] |
| City impact fees are currently set to zero | fee setting usd: 0; areas: all areas; effective date: 2025-09-08usd current setting | Current policy effective September 8, 2025 | City of Lubbock impact-fee program | Context only | [12] |
| May 2025 roadway study calculated a maximum assessable fee of $2,233 per vehicle-mile in Service Area F before Council policy setting | 2,233usd per vehicle mile maximum assessable | 2025 roadway capacity plan and maximum assessable fee analysis | Lubbock Roadway Service Area F | Context only | [13] [3] |
| Broadway reconstruction kicked off August 14, 2026 and is scheduled through July 2028 | corridor: Broadway from Avenue Q to Avenue E; length miles: 0.8; kickoff date: 2026-08-14; anticipated completion: 2028-07; scope: new three-lane concrete roadway, street parking, bike lanes, sidewalks, water and sewer upgrades, drainage, illumination, traffic signalsproject scope and dates | Project kickoff August 14, 2026 | Broadway, Avenue Q to Avenue E, downtown Lubbock | Conditional relationship | [15] [14] |
| Additional 2024 Roadway Bond projects have future anticipated construction windows | project: Avenue P, anticipated start: 2026-09, anticipated completion: 2028-03, project: Upland Avenue, anticipated start: 2027-03, anticipated completion: 2028-09, project: 146th Street, anticipated start: 2027-11, anticipated completion: 2029-05, project: 34th Street, anticipated start: 2028-11, anticipated completion: 2030-05anticipated project windows | Current project status accessed August 17, 2026 | Specific City of Lubbock roadway bond corridors | Context only | [14] |
| Permanent wall signs in base public and nonresidential districts are permit-controlled and subject to facade and tenant-space limits | covered districts: NC, AC, OF, LI, GI, HC, IP; sign type: wall; permit required: yes; maximum sign area percent of facade: 20; maximum sign area percent per tenant: 10; maximum width percent of facade or tenant space: 75code standard | Current codified requirements accessed August 17, 2026; core division adopted May 9, 2023 with subsequent amendments | City of Lubbock base public and nonresidential districts | Conditional relationship | [16] [5] |
| Recent zoning actions show distinct commercial and industrial development patterns across Lubbock submarkets | location: 1701/1705 Broadway and 1216 Avenue Q, change: MU-2 to NC, council action: second reading August 11, 2026, location: 52.4 acres north of Keuka Street and west of Interstate 27, change: SF-2 to GI, council action: second reading August 11, 2026, location: 6605-6805 Alcove Avenue and 7804 68th Street, change: OF to LI, council action: second reading August 11, 2026, location: 75.8 acres west of Upland Avenue near 34th/50th Street, change: SF-2 to NC and AC, council action: second reading August 11, 2026zoning actions | Planning & Zoning actions July 2, 2026; City Council actions through August 11, 2026 | Specific sites in the City of Lubbock | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| Lubbock industrial survey shows high overall occupancy but materially lower occupancy below 30,000 square feet | total occupancy percent: 97.8; under 30000 sqft occupancy percent: 88.1; under 10000 sqft average rent usd per sqft: 10.39; under 10000 sqft rent range usd per sqft: 4, 13percent and usd per sqft | 2026 Lubbock retail, office, and industrial market survey | Lubbock industrial market survey | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| Lubbock retail market survey reported 90.1 percent occupancy and $18.54 per-square-foot average rent in 2026 | occupancy percent: 90.1; average rent usd per sqft: 18.54percent and usd per sqft | 2026 Lubbock retail, office, and industrial market survey | Lubbock retail market survey | Context only | [18] |
| Lubbock public water system hardness averaged 169 ppm in 2025 | average ppm as caco3: 169; minimum ppm as caco3: 81; maximum ppm as caco3: 244; groundwater share percent: 61ppm as CaCO3 and percent | January 1-December 31, 2025 water quality data | Lubbock public water system | Context only | [19] |
| Off-campus college-student apartment inventory was about 22,900 beds in the third quarter of 2024 | off campus student beds: 22,900; increase since q3 2020 beds: 900; off campus student apartment vacancy percent: 17.4; average asking rent usd per bed: 622; ttu students on campus percent fall 2024: 18beds percent and usd | As of December 1, 2024; housing forecast through December 1, 2027 | Lubbock HMA student housing market, concentrated in and around the City of Lubbock | Context only | [7] |
| Lubbock HMA apartment market was soft in the third quarter of 2024 | overall rental vacancy percent: 14.8; apartment vacancy percent: 13; average apartment rent usd: 943; forecast new rental unit demand dec 2024 to dec 2027: 0percent usd and units | As of December 1, 2024; housing forecast through December 1, 2027 | Lubbock HMA | Context only | [7] |
| Texas Tech uses formal e-procurement, vendor-registration, bid-limit, and solicitation processes | eprocurement system: TechBuy; vendor registration required before po or payment: yes; bid limits and documentation required: yes; active solicitations platform: TechBid; proposal deadlines defined by bid postings: yesprocess requirements | Current procurement process accessed August 17, 2026 | Texas Tech University | Used in scoring | [9] |
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, HomeSmiles reached 71.34 after target-market demand +1.3 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.
- 1Franchise-to-city operating-fit scoring modelInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Valid city JSON exampleInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Structural Constraint and Jurisdictional Risk AuditInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: May 2025 roadway study calculated a maximum assessable fee of $2,233 per vehicle-mile in Service Area F before Council policy setting
- 4Utility Delta Audit: Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Opportunities in Local U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 5Franchise data - remake - 142Internal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Permanent wall signs in base public and nonresidential districts are permit-controlled and subject to facade and tenant-space limits
- 6QuickFacts: Lubbock city, Texas
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 1, 2025, and Estimated households in the 2020-2024 QuickFacts period
- 7Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis for Lubbock, Texas
Used for: Household formation accelerated after 2020 in the Lubbock HMA, Recent new-home development is concentrated in southern and western Lubbock, Off-campus college-student apartment inventory was about 22,900 beds in the third quarter of 2024, and Lubbock HMA apartment market was soft in the third quarter of 2024
- 8Texas Tech Enrollment Soars Past 42,000 for the First Time
Used for: Texas Tech University fall 2025 12th-class-day enrollment
- 9Purchasing
Used for: Texas Tech uses formal e-procurement, vendor-registration, bid-limit, and solicitation processes
- 10Occupational Employment and Wages in Lubbock — May 2025
Used for: Major franchise-relevant occupational groups in the Lubbock MSA did not show a broad wage premium versus the United States
- 11Lubbock, TX Economy at a Glance
Used for: Government employment share of Lubbock MSA nonfarm employment in June 2026 and Lubbock MSA unemployment rate in June 2026
- 12Impact Fees
Used for: City impact fees are currently set to zero
- 13Lubbock Texas 2025 Roadway Impact Fee Study Update
Used for: May 2025 roadway study calculated a maximum assessable fee of $2,233 per vehicle-mile in Service Area F before Council policy setting
- 142024 Roadway Bond
Used for: Broadway reconstruction kicked off August 14, 2026 and is scheduled through July 2028 and Additional 2024 Roadway Bond projects have future anticipated construction windows
- 15City of Lubbock to Host Ceremonial Groundbreaking for Broadway Reconstruction Project
Used for: Broadway reconstruction kicked off August 14, 2026 and is scheduled through July 2028
- 16Division 3.5: Signs, Lubbock Code of Ordinances
Used for: Permanent wall signs in base public and nonresidential districts are permit-controlled and subject to facade and tenant-space limits
- 17Planning & Zoning Commission July 2, 2026 Action Summary and Map
Used for: Recent zoning actions show distinct commercial and industrial development patterns across Lubbock submarkets
- 18Coldwell Banker Commercial Lubbock 2026 Market Trends
Used for: Lubbock industrial survey shows high overall occupancy but materially lower occupancy below 30,000 square feet and Lubbock retail market survey reported 90.1 percent occupancy and $18.54 per-square-foot average rent in 2026
- 192025 Water Quality Report
Used for: Lubbock public water system hardness averaged 169 ppm in 2025
- 20
- 21
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.