70.1 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Arlington, Texas
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Arlington, Texas. Housing-system replacement 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
20Local sources used
20Local 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
0.3 points average among 7 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 6 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Arlington, Texas
Aire Serv, ZOOM DRAIN, and Mr. Rooter produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Housing-system replacement demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 7 exposed concepts, adding 0.3 points on average. 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 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.1 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.1 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Arlington, Texas
Large pre-1990 housing cohort supports elevated repair and system-replacement demand
This relationship affected 7 concepts and added 0.3 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Housing units built before 1990 in the City's 2018 ACS-based housing-age table: 98,953 housing units. [5]
Arlington reports approximately 15 million visitors annually and AT&T Stadium can hold up to 100,000 people
Large visitor totals demonstrate substantial tourism demand, but the City's event-specific parking controls and venue geography show that demand and access are concentrated by event, district, and time. The annual visitor count should not be converted into uniform citywide walk-in traffic or a fixed-location demand assumption without a trade-area and event-calendar check. [6] [7] [8]
Commercial sign rules can require engineering and prototype adaptation for specified sign formats
Requires the proposed exterior sign package, including whether a freestanding sign exceeds eight feet and whether prohibited or area-limited sign formats are part of the standard prototype. [9]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large recurring Entertainment District events create concentrated demand spikes rather than uniform citywide walk-in demand3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- AT&T Stadium maximum event capacity cited by the City: 100,000 people [7] [8]
- Entertainment District ordinance authorizes temporary event-only no-parking zones near AT&T Stadium: designated residential zones: 3; activation: Cowboys home games and selected concerts, sporting events, and other high-profile stadium events; enforcement: on-street parking prohibited where activated; violations subject to towing or fines rule conditions [8]
- Approximate annual visitors to Arlington reported in city Entertainment District context: 15,000,000 visitors approximate per year [6]
Event-driven demand upsideTarget-market demand
Event-demand volatilityTarget-market demand
Large pre-1990 housing cohort supports elevated repair and system-replacement demand1 modeled effect
Housing-system replacement demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Active Southeast Connector construction creates route and schedule friction in south and southeast Arlington1 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Recurring major-event parking controls and traffic management constrain access around AT&T Stadium1 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 alignment70.5
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.48 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| 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 | 70.48 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- 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
- #1–#1
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.4 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 |
| +0.3 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| 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 | 70.35 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#4
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
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 | +0.35 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| 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 | 70.35 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#7
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.30 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| 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 | 70.30 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#8
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.2 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.16 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| 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 | 70.16 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- 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
- #5–#9
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.12 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| 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 | 70.12 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#10
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.11 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| 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 | 70.11 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#13
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#8
#9Tier 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: 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 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#9
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#10
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
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
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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#11
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
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 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
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 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
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
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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #14–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated Aire Serv
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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| 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 | 70.48 |
| 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.
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
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, 14 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #2 to #14, 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 rank14
What we observed
- Housing Units Built Before 1990 In The City's 2018 Acs Based Housing Age Table98,953 housing units
- Share Of Arlington Housing Units Built Before 1990 In The City's 2018 Acs Based Table67.3 percent of housing units
- City Housing Assessment States Older Pre 1990 Stock Is More Likely To Need Repairs And Updates, While Noting Age Does Not Determine Condition For Every Propertyyes reported relationship
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.5 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.4 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.3 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.3 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.2 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Target-market 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 Aire ServStable · tested #1–#1
#2 ZOOM DRAINModerately sensitive · tested #2–#4
#3 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #3–#7
#4 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #4–#8
#5 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #5–#9
#6 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #6–#10
#7 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #7–#13
#8 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #2–#8
#9 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #3–#9
#10 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #5–#10
#11 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #6–#11
#12 Workout AnytimeStable · tested #11–#12
#13 City WideStable · tested #12–#13
#14 Jan-Pro InternationalStable · tested #14–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Score-changing factors
Factors that changed the calculated scores
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [6] [7] [8] [14] [5] [1] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [4] [11] [1]Competitive environment: [18] [4] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [15] [16] [2] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [12] [13] [8] [11] [20] [2] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [17] [10] [1] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [18] [19] [14] [6] [3]Referral ecosystem: [14] [19] [18] [3]Territory quality: [8] [6] [12] [14] [4] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [9] [10] [19] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Property replacement-cycle demand |
|---|---|
| #1 Aire Serv | +0.5 pts |
| #2 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.4 pts |
| #3 Mr. Rooter | +0.3 pts |
| #4 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.3 pts |
| #5 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.2 pts |
| #6 PuroClean | +0.1 pts |
| #7 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.1 pts |
| #8 HomeSmiles | — |
| #9 Tiger Adjusters | — |
| #10 ActionCOACH | — |
| #11 FASTSIGNS | — |
| #12 Workout Anytime | — |
| #13 City Wide | — |
| #14 Jan-Pro International | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
Aire Serv, ZOOM DRAIN, Mr. Rooter led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from property replacement-cycle demand while remaining less exposed to target-market 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 Mr. Rooter, Mister Sparky Electric, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Arlington, Texas
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.1Limited comparison: Restoration franchise opportunities assessed in Arlington, Texas
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.1 to 70.1. PuroClean ranked highest at 70.1. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.1 points on average among the affected concepts.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.0-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.1–70.1
- Category average
- 70.1
PuroClean70.1
Rainbow International Restoration70.1
Metric registry
The 20 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 in 2024 ACS 1-year profile | 403,657people | 2024 ACS 1-year estimates unless otherwise noted | Arlington, Texas | Context only | [4] |
| Households in 2024 ACS 1-year profile | 146,132households | 2024 ACS 1-year estimates unless otherwise noted | Arlington, Texas | Context only | [4] |
| Housing units in 2024 ACS 1-year profile | 158,894housing units | 2024 ACS 1-year estimates unless otherwise noted | Arlington, Texas | Context only | [4] |
| University of Texas at Arlington total enrollment in Fall 2025 | 42,710students | Fall 2025 enrollment | The University of Texas at Arlington | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| Approximate annual visitors to Arlington reported in city Entertainment District context | 15,000,000visitors approximate per year | Current city tourism and Entertainment District context reported in June 2025 | Arlington, Texas | Supports modeled relationship | [6] |
| AT&T Stadium maximum event capacity cited by the City | 100,000people | AT&T Stadium operations and capacity as of August 2025 | AT&T Stadium, Arlington Entertainment District | Conditional relationship | [7] [8] |
| Entertainment District ordinance authorizes temporary event-only no-parking zones near AT&T Stadium | designated residential zones: 3; activation: Cowboys home games and selected concerts, sporting events, and other high-profile stadium events; enforcement: on-street parking prohibited where activated; violations subject to towing or finesrule conditions | Recurring event parking controls described for 2025 and established under a 2018 ordinance | Three residential zones surrounding AT&T Stadium in Arlington's Entertainment District | Conditional relationship | [8] |
| Housing units built before 1990 in the City's 2018 ACS-based housing-age table | 98,953housing units | Primarily 2018 ACS and planning projections prepared in 2020 | Arlington, Texas | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Share of Arlington housing units built before 1990 in the City's 2018 ACS-based table | 67.3percent of housing units | Primarily 2018 ACS and planning projections prepared in 2020 | Arlington, Texas | Used in scoring | [5] |
| City housing assessment states older pre-1990 stock is more likely to need repairs and updates, while noting age does not determine condition for every property | yesreported relationship | Primarily 2018 ACS and planning projections prepared in 2020 | Arlington, Texas | Used in scoring | [5] |
| City reports that Arlington has mostly clay soil that swells when wet and shrinks when dry, stressing pavement and accelerating roadway damage | yesreported physical mechanism | Street conditions and soil-management practices reported in May 2026 | Arlington, Texas | Context only | [11] |
| Southeast Connector rebuild and widening scope | approximate miles: 16; corridors: I-20, I-820, US 287; construction started: 2023; estimated substantial completion: 2028project scope | Active construction accessed August 2026; project began in 2023 and is estimated for substantial completion in 2028 | Southeast Tarrant County, including south Arlington segments on I-20 and US 287 | Conditional relationship | [12] [13] |
| Approximate daily commuters using Southeast Connector roadways cited in City project update | 250,000commuters per day approximate | Active construction progress through July 2025; substantial completion expected in early 2028 | Southeast Connector roadways in Tarrant County including Arlington segments | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| Freestanding signs greater than eight feet require professional-engineer-signed and sealed construction plans | sign type: freestanding; height threshold feet: 8; requirement: construction plans signed and sealed by a professional engineerrule threshold | Current code guidance accessed August 12, 2026 | Arlington, Texas | Conditional relationship | [9] |
| Current commercial sign guidance prohibits several sign formats and limits window-sign area | prohibited examples: decorative advertising flags, roof signs, portable signs, motion signs; window sign maximum percent of single window per tenant per elevation: 25rule set | Current code guidance accessed August 12, 2026 | Arlington, Texas | Conditional relationship | [9] |
| Commercial building permit fee formula for construction valuation above USD 5 million | base fee usd: 22,594.5; base valuation usd: 5,000,000; incremental fee usd per 1000 over base: 3fee formula | Fee schedule effective October 1, 2025 | Arlington, Texas | Context only | [10] |
| Non-refundable plan-review fee for commercial and multifamily building permit applications | 35percent of building permit fee | Fee schedule effective October 1, 2025 | Arlington, Texas | Context only | [10] |
| Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington major occupational-group mean hourly wages compared with U.S. averages | all occupations: dfw: 32.89, us: 32.66; management: dfw: 68.53, us: 68.15; food preparation and serving: dfw: 15.69, us: 17.32; building and grounds cleaning maintenance: dfw: 17.48, us: 19.01; construction and extraction: dfw: 26.49, us: 30.73; installation maintenance and repair: dfw: 28.97, us: 29.63; transportation and material moving: dfw: 23.66, us: 23.44usd per hour mean | May 2024 | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas MSA | Context only | [15] |
| Preliminary unemployment rate in Fort Worth-Arlington-Grapevine metropolitan division in June 2026 | 4percent | June 2026 preliminary labor-force data | Fort Worth-Arlington-Grapevine, Texas | Context only | [16] |
| City procurement uses a formal e-procurement portal and specified disclosure requirements for covered contracts | portal transition: IonWave to Bonfire; formal bid opportunities: yes; form 1295 applies to covered contracts: yesprocess features | Current procurement process accessed August 2026 | City of Arlington government procurement | Context only | [19] |
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, Aire Serv reached 70.48 after property replacement-cycle demand +0.5 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Reports are checked for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability before publication.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Local evidence supporting this report
The city page keeps the local sources used for its visible findings and metrics. Franchise-source provenance stays with the underlying franchise research rather than being duplicated across every city page.
- 1Utility Delta Audit: Structural Inefficiencies and CapEx Traps in Key U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Forensic Audit Report: Municipal Deal-Killer Constraints and Structural Capital ToxicityInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - augInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4Arlington, TX - Profile data
Used for: Resident population estimate in 2024 ACS 1-year profile, Households in 2024 ACS 1-year profile, and Housing units in 2024 ACS 1-year profile
- 5Arlington Housing Needs Assessment
Used for: Housing units built before 1990 in the City's 2018 ACS-based housing-age table, Share of Arlington housing units built before 1990 in the City's 2018 ACS-based table, and City housing assessment states older pre-1990 stock is more likely to need repairs and updates, while noting age does not determine condition for every property
- 6How Entertainment District Growth Helps City Provide Core Services
Used for: Approximate annual visitors to Arlington reported in city Entertainment District context
- 7Touchdown! City of Arlington Pays Off AT&T Stadium Debt 10 Years Early
Used for: AT&T Stadium maximum event capacity cited by the City
- 8What to Know: Special Events Parking Rules for AT&T Stadium Events
Used for: AT&T Stadium maximum event capacity cited by the City and Entertainment District ordinance authorizes temporary event-only no-parking zones near AT&T Stadium
- 9Commercial Sign Standards
Used for: Freestanding signs greater than eight feet require professional-engineer-signed and sealed construction plans and Current commercial sign guidance prohibits several sign formats and limits window-sign area
- 10Planning and Development Services Fee Schedule
Used for: Commercial building permit fee formula for construction valuation above USD 5 million and Non-refundable plan-review fee for commercial and multifamily building permit applications
- 114.59 Miles of Streets Improved in SW Arlington during April 2026
Used for: City reports that Arlington has mostly clay soil that swells when wet and shrinks when dry, stressing pavement and accelerating roadway damage
- 12Southeast Connector
Used for: Southeast Connector rebuild and widening scope
- 13TxDOT's Transformative Southeast Connector Project Progressing
Used for: Southeast Connector rebuild and widening scope and Approximate daily commuters using Southeast Connector roadways cited in City project update
- 14Fast Facts
Used for: University of Texas at Arlington total enrollment in Fall 2025
- 15Occupational Employment and Wages in Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington — May 2024
Used for: Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington major occupational-group mean hourly wages compared with U.S. averages
- 16Fort Worth-Arlington-Grapevine, TX Economy at a Glance
Used for: Preliminary unemployment rate in Fort Worth-Arlington-Grapevine metropolitan division in June 2026
- 17
- 18
- 19Bidding & Procurement
Used for: City procurement uses a formal e-procurement portal and specified disclosure requirements for covered contracts
- 20
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.