Local operating-model alignment analysis
Compare 14 franchise concepts in Asheville and see how $18.17 per hour building/grounds wage and 51.9% homeownership rate shaped local-alignment scores.
Bottom line
We compared 14 franchise concepts against Asheville's local operating conditions. The $18.17 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations across Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area created one of the strongest positive local signals for concepts exposed to low local occupational wage cost environment. [8] Asheville's 51.9% owner-occupied housing share created one of the more important local constraints for concepts exposed to low homeownership concentration. [1] [2]
City Wide Facility Solutions scored 70.49. It leads FASTSIGNS by 0.28 points. The documented healthcare and social assistance receipts in Asheville is $3.994 billion. For City Wide Facility Solutions, this was the largest positive contribution, adding 0.36 points through healthcare institutional service demand. [1] The model applied its general operating-friction guardrail at 0.10 points. The largest direct difference versus FASTSIGNS came from Asheville's $3.994 billion healthcare and social assistance receipts, which contributed +0.36 points to City Wide Facility Solutions versus +0.07 points to FASTSIGNS. [1]
What this means: this is a deterministic comparison of documented local conditions against resolved operating-model exposures. It is not an earnings forecast, investment recommendation, or franchise-quality rating.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City Wide Facility SolutionsIntegrated Facility Management | 70.49Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.36 pts$3.994 billion healthcare and social assistance receipts | -0.10 ptsgeneral operating-friction guardrail | High evidence confidence |
| 2 | FASTSIGNSSigns & GraphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 Item 7 source | 70.21Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.15 pts2,240,877 passengers annual airport passenger volume | -0.19 pts-1.3% population change since 2020 | High evidence confidence |
| 3 | JAN-PRO InternationalFranchise Consulting TrainingInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 Item 7 source | 70.14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.12 pts48.1% renter-occupied housing share | -0.16 pts-1.3% population change since 2020 | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | PuroCleanProperty RestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 Item 7 source | 69.95Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.14 pts$18.17 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.49 pts51.9% owner-occupied housing share | High evidence confidence |
| 5 | ActionCOACHBusiness CoachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 Item 7 source | 69.92Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive scored relationship | -0.14 pts-1.3% population change since 2020 | High evidence confidence |
| 6 | Workout AnytimeFull-Service FitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 Item 7 source | 69.77Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.08 pts$18.17 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.26 pts$1,402 median gross rent | High evidence confidence |
| 7 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome InspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 Item 7 source | 69.76Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.41 pts15.6% recent-mover share | -0.73 pts51.9% owner-occupied housing share | High evidence confidence |
| 8 | Rainbow International RestorationProperty RestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 Item 7 source | 69.48Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.14 pts$18.17 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.49 pts51.9% owner-occupied housing share | High evidence confidence |
| 9 | ZOOM DRAINPlumbing & Drain ServicesInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 Item 7 source | 69.45Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.20 pts$18.17 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.72 pts51.9% owner-occupied housing share | High evidence confidence |
| 10 | Tiger AdjustersPublic Adjusting & Claims AdvocacyInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 Item 7 source | 69.43Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.08 pts$18.17 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.65 pts51.9% owner-occupied housing share | High evidence confidence |
Cross-concept impact analysis
A city condition changes a franchise score only when it intersects with a relevant operating-model exposure. The center shows average effect when applied; the surrounding ring shows how broadly that relationship reached across the concepts assessed.
Most relevant modeled attributes: homeownership dependency.
Most relevant modeled attributes: recurring residential demand and local business density dependence.
Most relevant modeled attributes: skilled trade labor, technical labor, and administrative labor.
Most relevant modeled attributes: multi family housing dependency.
Most relevant modeled attributes: plumbing service, restoration service, and hvac service.
Modeled evidence traces
Each trace follows one documented local condition through resolved operating-model exposure, exact score contribution, and the resulting modeled difference. Open either image for the full-size analytical view.
Why the ranking came out this way
The comparison, score path, and counterfactual below all use the same contribution ledger as the published ranking.
The modeled gap is small enough that the two concepts should be treated as a leading cluster rather than a decisive first and second place.
| Modeled relationship | City Wide Facility Solutions | FASTSIGNS | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| $3.994 billion healthcare and social assistance receipts [1] | +0.36 pts | +0.07 pts | +0.29 pts |
| -1.3% population change since 2020 [1] [2] | -0.08 pts | -0.19 pts | +0.10 pts |
| general operating-friction guardrail | -0.10 pts | 0.00 pts | -0.10 pts |
| 48.1% renter-occupied housing share [1] [2] | +0.19 pts | +0.10 pts | +0.10 pts |
| 2,240,877 passengers annual airport passenger volume [15] | +0.08 pts | +0.15 pts | -0.07 pts |
Asheville's $3.994 billion healthcare and social assistance receipts created the largest modeled gap in this head-to-head: +0.36 points for City Wide Facility Solutions versus +0.07 points for FASTSIGNS. [1]
City Wide Facility Solutions, FASTSIGNS, and JAN-PRO International gained more than the rest of the field from $3.994 billion healthcare and social assistance receipts and 48.1% renter-occupied housing share through target-market demand. The ordering is assumption-sensitive for City Wide Facility Solutions, FASTSIGNS, and JAN-PRO International when individual factors are neutralized and the model is rerun. The same city condition can help one operating model while constraining another, so this ranking describes local operating alignment rather than universal franchise quality. [1] [2]
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.55 |
| 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 | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -0.10 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.494 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.49 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Inside the analysis workflow
Methodology-reference views of the research and QA workflow. Open any image for the full-size version.
Evaluation set
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
Concepts were included when the available operating-model evidence supported a deterministic local-sensitivity profile. Brand participation in our referral network does not affect the score.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
69.72 average across 2 concepts
0.13 points average among 7 affected concepts
0.43 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 11 positions
Conditions that changed the analysis
This relationship affected 13 concepts and added 0.13 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: $18.17 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations. [8]
This relationship affected 9 concepts and reduced 0.69 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: 51.9% owner-occupied housing share. [1] [2]
Compare all assessed concepts
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see every material score-changing relationship, with factor net shown only as secondary context; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
6 material local relationships changed this score: 4 advantages and 2 constraints. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $3.994 billion healthcare and social assistance receiptsLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #1 without this driver. | +0.36 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| 48.1% renter-occupied housing share | +0.19 pts | HighEvidence |
| -1.3% population change since 2020 | -0.08 pts | HighEvidence |
| 2,240,877 passengers annual airport passenger volume | +0.08 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| general operating-friction guardrail | -0.10 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $18.17 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | +0.05 pts | HighEvidence |
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.55 |
| 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 | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -0.10 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.494 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.49 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
5 material local relationships changed this score: 4 advantages and 1 constraint. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to -0.013 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| -1.3% population change since 2020Largest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #2 without this driver. | -0.19 pts | HighEvidence |
| 2,240,877 passengers annual airport passenger volume | +0.15 pts | HighEvidence |
| 48.1% renter-occupied housing share | +0.10 pts | HighEvidence |
| $3.994 billion healthcare and social assistance receipts | +0.07 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $18.17 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | +0.09 pts | HighEvidence |
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.13 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.08 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.211 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.21 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
3 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 1 constraint. 3 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.064 pts.
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.12 |
| 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 | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.142 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.14 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
6 material local relationships changed this score: 4 advantages and 2 constraints. 2 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.020 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 18.5% housing built 1939 or earlier share | +0.12 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected floodplain
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.25 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.12 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.07 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.947 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.95 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
1 material local relationships changed this score: 0 advantages and 1 constraint. 2 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.060 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| -1.3% population change since 2020Largest driverRelationship test: Rank #5 to #4 without this driver. | -0.14 pts | HighEvidence |
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.08 |
| 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 | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.919 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.92 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
2 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 1 constraint. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to -0.046 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $1,402 median gross rentLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #6 to #5 without this driver. | -0.26 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $18.17 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | +0.08 pts | HighEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected floodplain
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.26 |
| 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 | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.768 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.77 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
5 material local relationships changed this score: 3 advantages and 2 constraints. 2 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to -0.076 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 18.5% housing built 1939 or earlier share | +0.07 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.36 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.07 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.757 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.76 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
6 material local relationships changed this score: 4 advantages and 2 constraints. 3 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to -0.048 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 51.9% owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #8 to #9 without this driver. | -0.49 pts | HighEvidence |
| 14.6% under-65 uninsured share | -0.44 pts | HighEvidence |
| 2,240,877 passengers annual airport passenger volume | +0.11 pts | HighEvidence |
| 48.1% renter-occupied housing share | +0.08 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $18.17 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | +0.14 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 18.5% housing built 1939 or earlier share | +0.12 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected floodplain
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.71 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.12 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.07 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.484 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.48 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
7 material local relationships changed this score: 3 advantages and 4 constraints. 3 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.059 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 18.5% housing built 1939 or earlier share | +0.16 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.76 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.16 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.05 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.452 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.45 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
4 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 2 constraints. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to -0.009 pts.
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.58 |
| 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 | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.427 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.43 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
7 material local relationships changed this score: 3 advantages and 4 constraints. 2 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.053 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 18.5% housing built 1939 or earlier share | +0.16 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.89 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.16 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.321 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.32 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
7 material local relationships changed this score: 3 advantages and 4 constraints.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 18.5% housing built 1939 or earlier share | +0.15 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.94 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.15 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.05 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.255 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.25 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
6 material local relationships changed this score: 3 advantages and 3 constraints. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.020 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 51.9% owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #13 to #7 without this driver. | -0.80 pts | HighEvidence |
| -1.3% population change since 2020 | -0.34 pts | HighEvidence |
| $3.994 billion healthcare and social assistance receipts | +0.15 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| 48.1% renter-occupied housing share | +0.08 pts | HighEvidence |
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.89 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.11 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.217 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.22 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
6 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 4 constraints.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 18.5% housing built 1939 or earlier share | +0.14 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -1.15 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.14 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.022 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.02 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Factor impact
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 13 concepts changed position. City Wide Facility Solutions moved from #1 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 8 concepts changed position. PuroClean moved from #4 to #5, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 6 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 5 concepts changed position. PuroClean moved from #4 to #5, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
We separated regulations that create operating burdens from those that may create demand for qualified compliance and retrofit services.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 1 of 14 concepts. The adjustments changed absolute scores without changing the order.
Rank stability
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.
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Net factor impact
This graph plots net factor totals for the top 14 concepts. A near-zero net can contain meaningful positive and negative scored relationships that offset each other; those underlying drivers remain visible in each franchise's expanded score explanation.
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Regulatory and operating friction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide Facility Solutions | +0.50 pts | — | — | -0.10 pts |
| #2 FASTSIGNS | +0.10 pts | — | +0.10 pts | — |
| #3 JAN-PRO International | +0.10 pts | — | — | — |
| #4 PuroClean | -0.20 pts | +0.10 pts | +0.10 pts | — |
| #5 ActionCOACH | -0.10 pts | — | — | — |
| #6 Workout Anytime | -0.30 pts | — | — | — |
| #7 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | -0.40 pts | +0.10 pts | — | — |
| #8 Rainbow International Restoration | -0.70 pts | +0.10 pts | +0.10 pts | — |
| #9 ZOOM DRAIN | -0.80 pts | +0.20 pts | +0.10 pts | — |
| #10 Tiger Adjusters | -0.60 pts | — | — | — |
| #11 Mr. Rooter | -0.90 pts | +0.20 pts | — | — |
| #12 Aire Serv | -0.90 pts | +0.10 pts | +0.10 pts | — |
| #13 HomeSmiles | -0.90 pts | — | +0.10 pts | — |
| #14 Mister Sparky Electric | -1.10 pts | +0.10 pts | — | — |
Interpretation
City Wide Facility Solutions, FASTSIGNS, and JAN-PRO International gained more than the rest of the field from $3.994 billion healthcare and social assistance receipts and 48.1% renter-occupied housing share through target-market demand. The ordering is assumption-sensitive for City Wide Facility Solutions, FASTSIGNS, and JAN-PRO International when individual factors are neutralized and the model is rerun. The same city condition can help one operating model while constraining another, so this ranking describes local operating alignment rather than universal franchise quality.
Category comparisons
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
2 Property Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.48 to 69.95. PuroClean ranked highest at 69.95. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.12 points on average among the affected concepts. Target-market demand reduced the exposed concepts by 0.48 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.46-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
2 Plumbing & Drain Services concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.32 to 69.45. ZOOM DRAIN ranked highest at 69.45. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.16 points on average among the affected concepts. Target-market demand reduced the exposed concepts by 0.82 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.13-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
Metric registry
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population estimate | 93,523 | Population V2025; ACS 2020-2024; Economic Census 2022 | Asheville, North Carolina | Context only | [1] |
| Population change since 2020 | -1.3% | Population V2025; ACS 2020-2024; Economic Census 2022 | Asheville, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Population density | 2,080.2 persons per square mile | Population V2025; ACS 2020-2024; Economic Census 2022 | Asheville, North Carolina | Context only | [1] |
| Household count | 37,394 | Population V2025; ACS 2020-2024; Economic Census 2022 | Asheville, North Carolina | Context only | [1] |
| Housing-unit count | 54,967 | 2024 ACS 1-Year | Asheville, North Carolina | Context only | [6] |
| Owner-occupied housing share | 51.9% | Population V2025; ACS 2020-2024; Economic Census 2022 | Asheville, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Renter-occupied housing share | 48.1% | Population V2025; ACS 2020-2024; Economic Census 2022 | Asheville, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Median owner-occupied home value | $440,000 | Population V2025; ACS 2020-2024; Economic Census 2022 | Asheville, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [1] [3] |
| Median household income | $71,102 | Population V2025; ACS 2020-2024; Economic Census 2022 | Asheville, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [1] [3] |
| Median gross rent | $1,402 | Population V2025; ACS 2020-2024; Economic Census 2022 | Asheville, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [1] [3] |
| Recent-mover share | 15.6% | Population V2025; ACS 2020-2024; Economic Census 2022 | Asheville, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Age-65-and-older population share | 20.1% | Population V2025; ACS 2020-2024; Economic Census 2022 | Asheville, North Carolina | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Under-18 population share | 14.8% | Population V2025; ACS 2020-2024; Economic Census 2022 | Asheville, North Carolina | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Under-65 disability share | 10.6% | Population V2025; ACS 2020-2024; Economic Census 2022 | Asheville, North Carolina | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Under-65 uninsured share | 14.6% | Population V2025; ACS 2020-2024; Economic Census 2022 | Asheville, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [1] [2] [3] |
| Labor-force participation | 61.8% | Population V2025; ACS 2020-2024; Economic Census 2022 | Asheville, North Carolina | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Mean commute time | 18.2 minutes | Population V2025; ACS 2020-2024; Economic Census 2022 | Asheville, North Carolina | Context only | [1] |
| Households with broadband subscription | 90.5% | Population V2025; ACS 2020-2024; Economic Census 2022 | Asheville, North Carolina | Context only | [1] [3] |
| Retail sales per capita | $48,744 per capita | Population V2025; ACS 2020-2024; Economic Census 2022 | Asheville, North Carolina | Context only | [1] |
| Accommodation and food services sales | $1.360 billion | Population V2025; ACS 2020-2024; Economic Census 2022 | Asheville, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [1] |
| Healthcare and social assistance receipts | $3.994 billion | Population V2025; ACS 2020-2024; Economic Census 2022 | Asheville, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [1] |
| Transportation and warehousing receipts | $175.704 million | Population V2025; ACS 2020-2024; Economic Census 2022 | Asheville, North Carolina | Context only | [1] |
| Employer establishments | 9,863 employer establishments | ACS 2020-2024; County Business Patterns 2023; Economic Census 2022 | Buncombe County, North Carolina | Context only | [4] |
| Employment change | 1.8% | ACS 2020-2024; County Business Patterns 2023; Economic Census 2022 | Buncombe County, North Carolina | Context only | [4] |
| Detached single-family housing share | 57.3% | 2023 ACS 5-Year | Asheville, North Carolina | Context only | [17] |
| Housing built 1939 or earlier share | 18.5% | 2023 ACS 5-Year | Asheville, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [17] [7] |
| Remote-worker share | 18.7% | 2023 ACS 5-Year | Asheville, North Carolina | Context only | [17] |
| Food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | $17.00 per hour | May 2025 | Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [8] |
| Mean hourly wage for building and grounds occupations | $18.17 per hour | May 2025 | Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Office and administrative support mean hourly wage | $22.69 per hour | May 2025 | Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Construction and extraction mean hourly wage | $25.90 per hour | May 2025 | Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Installation, maintenance, and repair mean hourly wage | $27.61 per hour | May 2025 | Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Healthcare practitioner and technical mean hourly wage | $56.17 per hour | May 2025 | Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [8] |
| Healthcare practitioner and technical employment share | 8.2% of local employment | May 2025 | Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [8] |
| Unemployment rate | 3.3% | July 2026 | Asheville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [9] [10] |
| Annual airport passenger volume | 2,240,877 passengers | Calendar year 2025 | Asheville Regional Airport service market | Used in scoring | [15] |
| Visitor spending | $2.65 billion | Calendar year 2024 | Buncombe County, North Carolina | Context only | [16] |
| Annual snowfall climate normal | 10.3 inches annual snowfall | 1991-2020 climate normals | Asheville Regional Airport climate station area | Context only | [14] |
| Statutory minimum wage | $7.25 per hour | Current as accessed 2026-09-04 | North Carolina | Context only | [11] |
| General city business privilege-license requirement | No general City privilege license | Current as accessed 2026-09-04 | Asheville, North Carolina | Context only | [12] |
How to use the ranking
Methodology
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply fully supported relationships at full weight and otherwise scoreable research- or taxonomy-gated relationships at a reduced provisional weight.
Keep territory-, site-, customer-, project-, or configuration-dependent relationships outside the baseline score until the relevant candidate selections are known.
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
Every concept starts from the same 70.00 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In Asheville, City Wide Facility Solutions reached 70.494. Target-market demand netted to +0.55 points after $3.994 billion healthcare and social assistance receipts was partly offset by -1.3% population change since 2020. [1] [2] Regulatory and operating friction netted to -0.10 points after combining observed local relationships with a conservative or model-applied adjustment. Labor and staffing friction totaled +0.05 points, led by $18.17 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations at +0.05 points. [8]
The current model caps total local movement at ±18.00 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Score calibration
Each score-changing relationship starts with its model-defined maximum effect. The documented city-condition strength and the franchise's weighted operating exposure scale that maximum. Evidence confidence, provenance, geographic applicability, and the profile-confidence multiplier then modify the pre-cap effect. Fully supported relationships use full weight; broadly applicable relationships held back only by research or taxonomy-review gates use an additional 0.80 eligibility multiplier. Candidate-dependent site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections remain outside the baseline score until resolved. Correlation and score caps can reduce the resulting magnitude before the final contribution is added to the common baseline.
The model does not use one universal Minor/Moderate/Strong point table. Relationship-specific max_effect values are the actual point ceilings, so publishing generic point bands would misstate the scoring system.
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
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 updates are versioned and dated, documenting material changes to scoring, evidence handling, methodology, governance, and presentation across published reports.
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
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.
Used for: Population estimate, Population change since 2020, Population density, Household count, and Owner-occupied housing share
Used for: Population change since 2020, Owner-occupied housing share, Renter-occupied housing share, Recent-mover share, and Age-65-and-older population share
Used for: Median owner-occupied home value, Median household income, Median gross rent, Under-65 uninsured share, and Households with broadband subscription
Used for: Employer establishments and Employment change
Used for: Housing-unit count
Used for: Housing built 1939 or earlier share
Used for: Food preparation and serving mean hourly wage, Mean hourly wage for building and grounds occupations, Office and administrative support mean hourly wage, Construction and extraction mean hourly wage, and Installation, maintenance, and repair mean hourly wage
Used for: Unemployment rate
Used for: Unemployment rate
Used for: Statutory minimum wage
Used for: General city business privilege-license requirement
Used for: Annual snowfall climate normal
Used for: Annual airport passenger volume
Used for: Visitor spending
Used for: Detached single-family housing share, Housing built 1939 or earlier share, and Remote-worker share
Before contacting a franchisor
Apply the analysis to your situation
The city score does not include your experience, capital structure, time commitment, financing, or exact territory.
Twenty Twenty-Five
