70.4 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Shreveport, Louisiana
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Shreveport, Louisiana. Healthcare institutional service demand was a leading positive mechanism. Frontline labor pressure 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
25Sources used
17Primary sources
26Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
0.6 points average among 6 affected concepts
0.3 points average reduction among 6 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 12 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Shreveport, Louisiana
City Wide, HomeSmiles, and FASTSIGNS produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Healthcare institutional service demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 6 exposed concepts, adding 0.6 points on average. Frontline labor pressure was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.2 points on average. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing healthcare institutional service demand moved it from #1 to #2 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 71.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsReferral ecosystem | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Shreveport, Louisiana
Healthcare employment concentration and major Shreveport medical institutions create a substantial institutional service base
This relationship affected 6 concepts and added 0.6 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Education and health services payroll employment in June 2026: jobs thousands: 34; year over year change percent: 4 thousands of jobs and percent. [7] [6]
A large health-system employer floor above selected local low-wage occupational means creates targeted frontline recruiting pressure
This relationship affected 9 concepts and reduced 0.2 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Metropolitan labor force and unemployment conditions in June 2026: civilian labor force thousands: 173.1; employment thousands: 164.9; unemployment thousands: 8.2; unemployment rate percent: 4.7 thousands of people and percent. [7] [6]
Shreveport population declined 6.2 percent from the April 2020 estimate base to the July 2025 estimate
Resident decline is relevant to resident-dependent demand, but it does not erase concentrated healthcare and academic account demand. The city should therefore not be treated as uniformly weak for institutional or referral-dependent models, and the same institutional evidence should not be reinterpreted as proof of broad walk-in retail demand. [4] [7] [6] [18] [19]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Older housing cohorts and active rehabilitation programs support ongoing building-system replacement demand1 modeled effect
Housing-system replacement demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Healthcare employment concentration and major Shreveport medical institutions create a substantial institutional service base1 modeled effect
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
A large health-system employer floor above selected local low-wage occupational means creates targeted frontline recruiting pressure1 modeled effect
Frontline labor pressureLabor and staffing friction
Medical and academic institutions provide referral and account density while City procurement can impose formal buying cycles3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- A 2026 City RFP illustrates a multi-step formal procurement cycle: rfp: 26-805; issue date: 2026-04-29; proposal due date: 2026-06-04; response window days: 36; proposal firmness days minimum: 120; selection committee evaluation: yes; oral presentations may be requested: yes dates days and process elements [24]
- Ochsner LSU Health operates and expanded a major academic medical facility on Kings Highway in Shreveport: facility: Ochsner LSU Health Academic Medical Center; location: Kings Highway, Shreveport; neurosciences icu beds before: 8; neurosciences icu beds after: 12; system specialties more than: 75 facility and beds [18]
- LSU Health Shreveport reports substantial student and resident/fellow training activity: school of medicine students: 624; school of health professions students: 374; graduate school students: 103; residents and fellows: 609; accredited programs: 47 people and programs [19]
Professional and institutional relationship densityReferral ecosystem
Institutional procurement-cycle frictionSales and customer acquisition
Programmed Linwood Avenue reconstruction creates temporary, corridor-specific route and access uncertainty1 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Sign permits and Historic Preservation Overlay District review can require site-specific exterior prototype adaptation1 modeled effect
Signage and prototype adaptation burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.7
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 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 |
| +1.3 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.74 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 | +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 included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 71.74 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.7 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.5 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 |
| +0.5 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.79 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +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 | 70.79 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#7
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Signage and prototype adaptation burden EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.73 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 | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +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 | 70.73 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#9
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.69 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 | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +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 | 70.69 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#6
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemNo 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| 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
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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.63 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#10
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.1 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.55 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 | +0.9 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.1 |
| 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 | 70.55 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#14
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.5 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 |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.44 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| 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 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 | 70.44 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#13
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.41 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 | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +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 | 70.41 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#11
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.35 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.35 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#10
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.31 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 | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.31 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#11
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 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 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 | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +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 | 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#13
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.2 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.16 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.16 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
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 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.97 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.27 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.73 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #13–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not 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 included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 71.74 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.7 |
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 effectMixed or model dependent
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 6 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 14 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #6 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted6 of 14
Average among affected+0.6 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank14
What we observed
- Education And Health Services Payroll Employment In June 2026jobs thousands: 34; year over year change percent: 4 thousands of jobs and percent
- Healthcare Practitioners And Technical Occupations Have A High Local Employment Concentrationemployment: 15,600; employment share percent: 9.6; location quotient: 1.52; mean hourly wage usd: 41.18; united states mean hourly wage usd: 52.26 employment share location quotient and usd per hour
- Ochsner Lsu Health Operates And Expanded A Major Academic Medical Facility On Kings Highway In Shreveportfacility: Ochsner LSU Health Academic Medical Center; location: Kings Highway, Shreveport; neurosciences icu beds before: 8; neurosciences icu beds after: 12; system specialties more than: 75 facility and beds
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.3 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+0.9 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.5 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.5 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.2 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 9 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #7 to #13, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.3 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank9
What we observed
- Owner Occupied Housing Unit Rate53.3 percent of occupied housing units
- 2025 City Housing Action Plan Includes Owner And Rental Rehabilitation And Reconstruction Activityowner rehabilitation goal units: 25; owner rehabilitation budget usd: 500,000; owner reconstruction goal units: 4; rental rehabilitation goal units: 25; rental rehabilitation budget usd: 596,714 units and usd
- Large Shares Of Owner And Renter Housing Were Constructed Before 1980 In The City Housing Needs Assessmentowner units built before 1980 percent: 70; renter units built before 1980 percent: 68; owner units built 1950 1979 percent: 57; renter units built 1950 1979 percent: 55; owner units built before 1950 percent: 13; renter units built before 1950 percent: 13 percent of tenure group housing units
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.5 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.4 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.4 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.3 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+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 6 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #6 to #2, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted6 of 14
Average among affected-0.3 pts
Average across all concepts-0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Mean Hourly Wages For Operating Relevant Occupational Groups In The Shreveport Bossier City Metropolitan Areaall occupations: local: 26.24, united states: 33.54; food preparation and serving: local: 12.57, united states: 17.86; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: local: 14.43, united states: 19.66; office and administrative support: local: 20.91, united states: 24.79; construction and extraction: local: 26.07, united states: 31.42; installation maintenance and repair: local: 28.02, united states: 30.44; transportation and material moving: local: 20.47, united states: 23.96 usd per hour
- Metropolitan Labor Force And Unemployment Conditions In June 2026civilian labor force thousands: 173.1; employment thousands: 164.9; unemployment thousands: 8.2; unemployment rate percent: 4.7 thousands of people and percent
- Ochsner Lsu Health Raised Its Minimum Wage To Usd 15 Per Hour Effective May 31, 2026employer: Ochsner LSU Health; minimum wage usd per hour: 15; effective date: 2026-05-31; system employees more than: 4,200; physicians and residents more than: 950 usd per hour and people
Concepts challenged most
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-0.5 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-0.3 pts
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.3 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.2 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
-0.1 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, 11 concepts changed position. HomeSmiles moved from #2 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank11
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.6 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.5 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.4 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.4 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- 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 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #2–#7
#3 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #2–#9
#4 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #1–#6
#5 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #3–#10
#6 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#14
#7 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #3–#13
#8 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #5–#11
#9 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #5–#10
#10 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #7–#11
#11 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13
#12 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsModerately sensitive · tested #9–#12
#13 Tiger AdjustersStable · tested #12–#13
#14 Workout AnytimeStable · tested #13–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [5] [7] [6] [18] [19] [20] [21] [2] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [15] [16] [4] [5] [2]Competitive environment: [25] [4] [21] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [6] [7] [17] [18] [15] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [8] [9] [12] [1] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [21] [12] [10] [13] [14] [2] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [22] [23] [24] [25] [3]Referral ecosystem: [18] [19] [20] [22] [23] [3]Territory quality: [21] [8] [10] [13] [14] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [1] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +1.3 pts | — | -0.1 pts | +0.6 pts |
| #2 HomeSmiles | +0.5 pts | — | -0.1 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +0.5 pts | — | — | +0.3 pts |
| #4 ZOOM DRAIN | — | +0.4 pts | — | +0.3 pts |
| #5 ActionCOACH | +0.2 pts | — | — | +0.5 pts |
| #6 Jan-Pro International | +0.9 pts | — | -0.5 pts | +0.1 pts |
| #7 Aire Serv | — | +0.5 pts | — | — |
| #8 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.2 pts | +0.1 pts | -0.3 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #9 Mr. Rooter | — | +0.4 pts | — | — |
| #10 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.3 pts | — | — |
| #11 PuroClean | — | +0.1 pts | -0.2 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #12 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | +0.2 pts | — | — |
| #13 Tiger Adjusters | — | — | — | — |
| #14 Workout Anytime | — | — | -0.3 pts | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, HomeSmiles, FASTSIGNS led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to labor and staffing friction. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for HomeSmiles, FASTSIGNS, ZOOM DRAIN; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Shreveport, Louisiana
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.4Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Shreveport, Louisiana
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.3 to 70.4. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.4. Referral ecosystem added 0.4 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.3 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.1-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.3–70.4
- Category average
- 70.4
Rainbow International Restoration70.4
PuroClean70.3
Metric registry
The 26 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 175,902people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 household and housing measures; 2022 business-sales measures | Shreveport, Louisiana | Supports research conclusion | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | -6.2percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 household and housing measures; 2022 business-sales measures | Shreveport, Louisiana | Supports research conclusion | [4] |
| Estimated households during the 2020-2024 QuickFacts period | 75,996households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 household and housing measures; 2022 business-sales measures | Shreveport, Louisiana | Context only | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate | 53.3percent of occupied housing units | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 household and housing measures; 2022 business-sales measures | Shreveport, Louisiana | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Rental and apartment vacancy in the Shreveport-Bossier City HMA as of April 2024 | overall rental vacancy percent: 12; apartment vacancy percent q1 2024: 11.7; average apartment rent usd per month: 906percent and usd per month | Housing market conditions current as of April 1, 2024 with forecast through April 1, 2027 | Shreveport-Bossier City, Louisiana | Context only | [5] |
| HUD forecast no net demand for additional rental units in the HMA during the April 2024-April 2027 forecast period | forecast new rental demand units: 0; units under construction at baseline: 200housing units | Housing market conditions current as of April 1, 2024 with forecast through April 1, 2027 | Shreveport-Bossier City, Louisiana | Context only | [5] |
| Large shares of owner and renter housing were constructed before 1980 in the city housing-needs assessment | owner units built before 1980 percent: 70; renter units built before 1980 percent: 68; owner units built 1950 1979 percent: 57; renter units built 1950 1979 percent: 55; owner units built before 1950 percent: 13; renter units built before 1950 percent: 13percent of tenure group housing units | Plan period 2024-2028; housing-age table uses 2013-2017 ACS data | Shreveport, Louisiana | Used in scoring | [15] |
| 2025 city housing action plan includes owner and rental rehabilitation and reconstruction activity | owner rehabilitation goal units: 25; owner rehabilitation budget usd: 500,000; owner reconstruction goal units: 4; rental rehabilitation goal units: 25; rental rehabilitation budget usd: 596,714units and usd | Program year 2025 | Shreveport, Louisiana | Used in scoring | [16] |
| Mean hourly wages for operating-relevant occupational groups in the Shreveport-Bossier City metropolitan area | all occupations: local: 26.24, united states: 33.54; food preparation and serving: local: 12.57, united states: 17.86; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: local: 14.43, united states: 19.66; office and administrative support: local: 20.91, united states: 24.79; construction and extraction: local: 26.07, united states: 31.42; installation maintenance and repair: local: 28.02, united states: 30.44; transportation and material moving: local: 20.47, united states: 23.96usd per hour | May 2025 | Shreveport-Bossier City, Louisiana | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Metropolitan labor force and unemployment conditions in June 2026 | civilian labor force thousands: 173.1; employment thousands: 164.9; unemployment thousands: 8.2; unemployment rate percent: 4.7thousands of people and percent | June 2026 labor force and payroll employment; page extracted August 13, 2026 | Shreveport-Bossier City, Louisiana | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Education and health services payroll employment in June 2026 | jobs thousands: 34; year over year change percent: 4thousands of jobs and percent | June 2026 labor force and payroll employment; page extracted August 13, 2026 | Shreveport-Bossier City, Louisiana | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations have a high local employment concentration | employment: 15,600; employment share percent: 9.6; location quotient: 1.52; mean hourly wage usd: 41.18; united states mean hourly wage usd: 52.26employment share location quotient and usd per hour | May 2025 | Shreveport-Bossier City, Louisiana | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Ochsner LSU Health raised its minimum wage to USD 15 per hour effective May 31, 2026 | employer: Ochsner LSU Health; minimum wage usd per hour: 15; effective date: 2026-05-31; system employees more than: 4,200; physicians and residents more than: 950usd per hour and people | Minimum wage effective May 31, 2026; system workforce and service footprint reported March 2026 | Ochsner LSU Health in North Louisiana, including major Shreveport facilities | Used in scoring | [17] [18] |
| Ochsner LSU Health operates and expanded a major academic medical facility on Kings Highway in Shreveport | facility: Ochsner LSU Health Academic Medical Center; location: Kings Highway, Shreveport; neurosciences icu beds before: 8; neurosciences icu beds after: 12; system specialties more than: 75facility and beds | May 2026 | Ochsner LSU Health Academic Medical Center, Shreveport | Used in scoring | [18] |
| LSU Health Shreveport reports substantial student and resident/fellow training activity | school of medicine students: 624; school of health professions students: 374; graduate school students: 103; residents and fellows: 609; accredited programs: 47people and programs | Current enrollment and training counts accessed August 2026 | LSU Health Shreveport | Used in scoring | [19] |
| Louisiana State University Shreveport reported record spring 2026 enrollment | spring 2026 total enrollment: 10,959; spring 2026 undergraduate enrollment: 2,892; fall 2025 total enrollment: 11,359students | Spring 2026 and Fall 2025 enrollment | Louisiana State University Shreveport | Supports modeled relationship | [20] |
| Surveyed office/service-center and bulk-warehouse occupancy and asking rents in Q4 2025 | office service center properties: 15; office service center inventory sqft: 448,631; office service center occupancy percent: 95.1; office service center rent upper usd per sqft year: 9.25; office service center rent lower usd per sqft year: 7.88; bulk warehouse properties: 58; bulk warehouse inventory sqft: 7,643,236; bulk warehouse occupancy percent: 93.2; additional values omittedproperties square feet percent and usd per square foot year | Q4 2025 industrial/service-center and retail survey; Q3 2025 office survey; 2025 building permits | Shreveport-Bossier industrial/service-center survey | Conditional relationship | [21] |
| Retail vacancy and office occupancy differ materially by product and office submarket | surveyed retail centers: 72; retail inventory sqft: 7,900,000; retail vacant sqft: 1,012,584; downtown office occupancy percent q3 2025: 74.6; suburban office occupancy percent q3 2025: 90.7centers square feet and percent | Q4 2025 industrial/service-center and retail survey; Q3 2025 office survey; 2025 building permits | Shreveport-Bossier retail market and Shreveport office submarkets | Conditional relationship | [21] |
| Shreveport issued fewer single-family permits than Bossier City in 2025 | shreveport single family permits: 177; bossier city single family permits: 285permits | Q4 2025 industrial/service-center and retail survey; Q3 2025 office survey; 2025 building permits | Shreveport compared with adjacent Bossier City | Context only | [21] |
| Linwood Avenue reconstruction and bridge projects are programmed for 2026 activity | phase iii: project code: C19002, segment: Mt. Zion Road to West 84th Street, total project budget usd: 10,798,100, status: in construction as of the budget status date; anticipated completion in 2026; phase iv: project code: C19003, segment: West 84th Street to West 70th Street, total project budget usd: 8,625,000, status: design complete and awaiting procurement as of the budget status date; anticipated construction in 2026; linwood bridge: project code: C24005, project: Healthcare & Development Corridor (Linwood Bridge), total project budget usd: 5,258,400, status: design and railroad coordination underway as of the budget status date; anticipated design completion and construction initiation in 2026project status and usd | Project status generally reported as of August 1, 2025 with 2026 planned activity | Linwood Avenue corridor, Shreveport | Conditional relationship | [8] |
| City announced a short-duration Linwood/Lynbrook lane closure for roadway reconstruction in June 2026 | start date: 2026-06-15; expected duration weeks: 3; location: Linwood Avenue and Lynbrook Boulevard area; status as of research date: historical closure window; not assumed still active on August 17, 2026dates and duration | Roadway reconstruction beginning June 15, 2026 with an approximately three-week lane-closure window | Linwood Avenue at Lynbrook Boulevard, Shreveport | Conditional relationship | [9] |
| Exterior work requiring a building permit in a mapped Historic Preservation Overlay District requires a Certificate of Appropriateness | property gate: mapped Historic Preservation Overlay District; work gate: exterior improvement requiring a building permit; application timing: submit at least 30 days before the Historic Preservation Commission hearingregulatory requirements | Current requirements accessed August 2026 | Mapped Historic Preservation Overlay Districts in Shreveport | Conditional relationship | [10] [12] [3] |
| Sign erection, construction, alteration, or relocation generally requires MPC sign-permit review | covered actions: erect, construct, alter, relocate; governing code reference: Shreveport UDC Article 9; site specific review required: yesregulatory requirements | Current permit guidance accessed August 2026 | City of Shreveport and MPC planning limits | Conditional relationship | [11] [12] [3] |
| Cross Lake, flood-hazard, and right-of-way conditions create site- and project-specific permit requirements | cross lake construction gate: one-time construction permit for construction within the 172-foot contour of Cross Lake; special flood hazard area gate: development permit required before development in a Special Flood Hazard Area; city page states no permit fee; right of way encroachment process fee usd: 1,500; right of way per encroachment fee usd: 50permit gates and usd | Current permit and fee guidance accessed August 2026 | Cross Lake watershed, mapped flood-hazard areas, and city right-of-way in Shreveport | Conditional relationship | [13] [14] |
| Entities seeking to do business with the City of Shreveport must complete vendor onboarding and follow formal solicitation channels | vendor application required: yes; solicitation types: IFB, RFQ, RFP, RFS; opportunity channels: City of Shreveport, BidNetDirectprocess requirements | Current vendor onboarding requirements accessed August 2026 | City of Shreveport procurement | Supports modeled relationship | [22] [23] |
| A 2026 City RFP illustrates a multi-step formal procurement cycle | rfp: 26-805; issue date: 2026-04-29; proposal due date: 2026-06-04; response window days: 36; proposal firmness days minimum: 120; selection committee evaluation: yes; oral presentations may be requested: yesdates days and process elements | Solicitation issued April 29, 2026; proposals due June 4, 2026 | City of Shreveport procurement example | Supports modeled relationship | [24] |
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 71.74 after target-market demand +1.3 pts, referral ecosystem +0.6 pts, and labor and staffing friction -0.1 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the claims or metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is clearly distinguished from publicly accessible evidence.
- 1Structural Constraint and Jurisdictional Risk AuditInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Utility Delta Audit: Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Opportunities in Local U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - 142Internal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Exterior work requiring a building permit in a mapped Historic Preservation Overlay District requires a Certificate of Appropriateness and Sign erection, construction, alteration, or relocation generally requires MPC sign-permit review
- 4QuickFacts: Shreveport city, Louisiana
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Estimated households during the 2020-2024 QuickFacts period, and Owner-occupied housing unit rate
- 5Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis for Shreveport-Bossier City, Louisiana
Used for: Rental and apartment vacancy in the Shreveport-Bossier City HMA as of April 2024 and HUD forecast no net demand for additional rental units in the HMA during the April 2024-April 2027 forecast period
- 6Occupational Employment and Wages in Shreveport-Bossier City — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wages for operating-relevant occupational groups in the Shreveport-Bossier City metropolitan area and Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations have a high local employment concentration
- 7Economy at a Glance: Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
Used for: Metropolitan labor force and unemployment conditions in June 2026 and Education and health services payroll employment in June 2026
- 82026 Capital Budget
Used for: Linwood Avenue reconstruction and bridge projects are programmed for 2026 activity
- 9Roadwork Press Release on Linwood
Used for: City announced a short-duration Linwood/Lynbrook lane closure for roadway reconstruction in June 2026
- 10Historic Preservation Commission Application
Used for: Exterior work requiring a building permit in a mapped Historic Preservation Overlay District requires a Certificate of Appropriateness
- 11Sign Permit
Used for: Sign erection, construction, alteration, or relocation generally requires MPC sign-permit review
- 12Unofficial Shreveport Unified Development Code
Used for: Exterior work requiring a building permit in a mapped Historic Preservation Overlay District requires a Certificate of Appropriateness and Sign erection, construction, alteration, or relocation generally requires MPC sign-permit review
- 13Permits & Specialized Service Fees
Used for: Cross Lake, flood-hazard, and right-of-way conditions create site- and project-specific permit requirements
- 14Civil Permits
Used for: Cross Lake, flood-hazard, and right-of-way conditions create site- and project-specific permit requirements
- 15City of Shreveport 2024-2028 Consolidated Plan
Used for: Large shares of owner and renter housing were constructed before 1980 in the city housing-needs assessment
- 162025 Annual Action Plan
Used for: 2025 city housing action plan includes owner and rental rehabilitation and reconstruction activity
- 17Ochsner LSU Health Raises Minimum Wage to $15 per Hour
Used for: Ochsner LSU Health raised its minimum wage to USD 15 per hour effective May 31, 2026
- 18Ochsner LSU Health Opens Newly Renovated Neurosciences Intensive Care Unit
Used for: Ochsner LSU Health raised its minimum wage to USD 15 per hour effective May 31, 2026 and Ochsner LSU Health operates and expanded a major academic medical facility on Kings Highway in Shreveport
- 19Our Schools
Used for: LSU Health Shreveport reports substantial student and resident/fellow training activity
- 20LSUS’s Undergraduate Enrollment Growth Driving New Spring Semester Record
Used for: Louisiana State University Shreveport reported record spring 2026 enrollment
- 21Commercial Review — Spring 2026
Used for: Surveyed office/service-center and bulk-warehouse occupancy and asking rents in Q4 2025, Retail vacancy and office occupancy differ materially by product and office submarket, and Shreveport issued fewer single-family permits than Bossier City in 2025
- 22City of Shreveport Vendor Application
Used for: Entities seeking to do business with the City of Shreveport must complete vendor onboarding and follow formal solicitation channels
- 23Bids & RFPs
Used for: Entities seeking to do business with the City of Shreveport must complete vendor onboarding and follow formal solicitation channels
- 24RFP 26-805 — Workers’ Compensation Claims Administration Services
Used for: A 2026 City RFP illustrates a multi-step formal procurement cycle
- 25
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.