66.5 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Atlanta, Georgia
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Atlanta, Georgia. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Route and curb productivity pressure was a leading operating constraint.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
35Sources used
22Primary sources
32Local 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
1.3 points average among 11 affected concepts
0.9 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 11 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Atlanta, Georgia
City Wide, ActionCOACH, and FASTSIGNS produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Local business demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 10 exposed concepts, adding 1.2 points on average. Route and curb productivity pressure was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.9 points on average. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing local business demand moved it from #1 to #2 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 72.7Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +3.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.8 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 72.4Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 71.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 69.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.0 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 69.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.9 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 68.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -3.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 68.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.2 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 68.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.4 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 68.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.7 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Atlanta, Georgia
Large resident, employment, and sector activity base supports broad local business demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 1.2 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Estimated households in the 2020-2024 period: 236,468 households. [4] [7]
Auto dependence, long regional trips, and all-day congestion constrain high-stop and time-sensitive routes
This relationship affected 14 concepts and reduced 0.9 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Most-cited barriers to using alternative commute modes: longer trip time percent: 47; no transit available percent: 44 percent of survey respondents. [8] [9]
Atlanta's city population increased 6.1 percent from the 2020 estimate base to July 2025
Population growth expands the resident base but does not establish uniformly accessible demand. Atlanta spans 135.31 square miles, regional commuting remains heavily auto-dependent, and real-estate and construction conditions differ by corridor and product type. Site-based and route-based concepts therefore require trade-area and travel-time analysis rather than applying citywide growth directly. [4] [8] [9] [10] [11]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large resident, employment, and sector activity base supports broad local business demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Auto dependence, long regional trips, and all-day congestion constrain high-stop and time-sensitive routes1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
Active I-285 projects create corridor-specific temporary routing disruption1 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Large university and healthcare institutions create account and professional-referral opportunities3 local facts · 3 modeled effects · 4 sources
- Georgia Tech enrollment and physical-facility scale: undergraduate enrollment: 21,028; graduate enrollment: 35,687; institute facility sqft: 15,318,523; occupied student and greek housing beds: 9,786 mixed [26] [27]
- Emory University and healthcare scale in metro Atlanta: undergraduate students: 8,341; graduate professional students: 8,170; staff members minimum: 14,500; healthcare locations minimum: 625; patients served annually minimum: 850,000; atlanta alumni minimum: 51,800 mixed [28]
- Woodruff Health Sciences Center employees, facilities, and patient base: employees: 37,141; net facility sqft: 5,700,000; unique patients annually: 787,450; hospital beds: 2,746 mixed [29]
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Institutional professional relationship baseReferral ecosystem
Campus-contained demand constraintTarget-market demand
Industrial, office, transportation, and regulatory conditions vary materially by submarket and corridor1 modeled effect
Territory and submarket uncertaintyTerritory quality
Covered commercial and multifamily buildings face annual benchmarking and periodic audit requirements1 local fact · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Commercial and multifamily properties over 25,000 square feet are subject to annual benchmarking and periodic ASHRAE Level II audit requirements: minimum property size sqft: 25,000; benchmarking frequency: annual; audit frequency years: 10; abid ending 6 audit deadline: 2026-12-31 mixed [23] [24] [25]
Facility compliance burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Energy-retrofit service demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Historic, landmark, overlay, and special districts can require site-specific sign and exterior-design review1 modeled effect
Signage and prototype adaptation burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.7
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +3.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.8 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +3.3 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.74 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +3.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | -0.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.74 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +3.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.4
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +2.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.2 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.45 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | -0.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.45 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.3
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +2.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Territory quality
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.6 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.1 pts |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Signage and prototype adaptation burden EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.27 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
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 | +2.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.1 |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.27 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#5
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.0 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.6 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.0 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -0.5 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.45 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.0 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.5 |
| 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 | -0.5 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.55 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#9
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.3
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.4 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 pts | |
| Net local movement | -0.70 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.4 |
| 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 | -0.3 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.30 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#9
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.0
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.9 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.9 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.99 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.9 |
| 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 | -0.5 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.01 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#8
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.5
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +2.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -3.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -3.3 pts | |
| Target-market demand | +2.7 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.52 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -3.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| 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 | -0.4 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.48 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -3.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#14
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.5
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.2 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.2 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -1.53 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.2 |
| 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 | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.47 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#10
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.4
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.4 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.4 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 pts | |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -1.58 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.4 |
| 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 | -0.5 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.42 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#10
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.4
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.7 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.7 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -1.64 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.7 |
| 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 | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.36 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#11
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.2
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.9 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.9 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -1.75 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.9 |
| 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 | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.25 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#13
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment66.6
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -2.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.1 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -1.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -3.38 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.2 |
| 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 | -1.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 66.62 |
| Published local-market alignment | 66.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#14
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment66.5
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.8 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.8 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.3 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -3.46 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.3 |
| 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 | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 66.54 |
| Published local-market alignment | 66.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment66.5
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.5 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.5 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -3.50 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.5 |
| 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 | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 66.50 |
| Published local-market alignment | 66.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +3.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | -0.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.74 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectPositive local support
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 11 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #7 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted11 of 14
Average among affected+1.3 pts
Average across all concepts+1.0 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Resident Population Estimate On July 1, 2025529,110 people
- Estimated Households In The 2020 2024 Period236,468 households
- Economic Census Revenue And Sales In Selected Atlanta Sectorsretail sales usd thousands: 13,290,849; health care social assistance revenue usd thousands: 13,219,440; transportation warehousing revenue usd thousands: 23,609,220; accommodation food services sales usd thousands: 5,534,887
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+3.3 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+2.7 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+2.6 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+2.2 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.6 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 2 concepts changed position. Mr. Rooter moved from #10 to #9, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.2 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank2
What we observed
- Total Housing Units And Multi Unit Sharehousing units: 284,949; multi unit share percent: 59; occupied share percent: 86; renter occupied share percent: 52 mixed
- New Development And Redevelopment Generally Must Manage The First Inch Of Rainfall On Site With Green Infrastructure1 inches of rainfall
- Most Metro Atlanta Housing Units Were More Than 20 Years Old; 24 Percent Were Built During The 2000smajority older than 20 years: yes; built 2000 to 2009 percent: 24 mixed
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.4 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.3 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.3 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.3 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.1 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 10 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #7 to #3, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted10 of 14
Average among affected-1.1 pts
Average across all concepts-0.8 pts
Concepts changing rank11
What we observed
- Metropolitan Unemployment Rate In May 20263.2 percent not seasonally adjusted
- Metropolitan Total Nonfarm Employment In June 20263,127,800 jobs preliminary
- Transportation And Material Moving Employment Concentration And Wagesemployment: 313,910; employment share percent: 10.9; national share percent: 8.8; mean hourly wage usd: 28.64; national mean hourly wage usd: 23.96 mixed
Concepts challenged most
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-3.3 pts
Workout AnytimeFitness
-2.1 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.8 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-1.5 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
-1.0 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Transportation, routing, and parking
We recalculated route-dependent models after accounting for travel corridors, parking, and the number of productive stops they require.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #11 to #4, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-0.9 pts
Average across all concepts-0.9 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Active I 285 Construction Affects Two Metro Corridors With Route Specific Applicabilityi285 west pavement replacement: corridor miles: 5.3, construction percent complete: 15.46, status: under construction; i285 i20 east interchange: status: under construction, scope: interchange reconstruction and adjacent auxiliary or collector-distributor lanes mixed
- City Land Area And Resident Population Densityland area square miles: 135.31; population per square mile: 3,685.7 mixed
- Primary Commute Modes And Telework Prevalence In The 20 County Atlanta Regiondrive alone primary mode percent: 81.6; teleworked at any time percent: 60; full time telework percent: 20; telework primary mode percent: 11.9 percent of workers or commuters
Concepts challenged most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.9 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-1.7 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-1.5 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-1.4 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.3 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Referral ecosystem
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 3 of 14 concepts. The adjustments changed absolute scores without changing the order.
Concepts adjusted3 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank0
Concepts helped most
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.6 pts
City WideFacility management
+0.4 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.1 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Territory quality
We measured whether the territory structure could support the required customer density, service radius, and operating model.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 5 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #7 to #10, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-0.5 pts
Average across all concepts-0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank5
What we observed
- Signs Require Permitting, And Exterior Work In Historic Or Landmark Districts May Require A Certificate Of Appropriateness Or Additional Reviewsign permit category: yes; historic certificate may apply: yes; special public interest district count minimum: 20 categorical
- Active I 285 Construction Affects Two Metro Corridors With Route Specific Applicabilityi285 west pavement replacement: corridor miles: 5.3, construction percent complete: 15.46, status: under construction; i285 i20 east interchange: status: under construction, scope: interchange reconstruction and adjacent auxiliary or collector-distributor lanes mixed
- Atlanta Industrial Vacancy, Rent, And Size Segment Performancedirect vacancy percent: 8.2; nnn asking rent usd per sqft year: 7.76; smaller legacy product availability direction: rising; bulk distribution demand direction: stronger mixed
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-1.1 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-0.6 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.6 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.6 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideStable · tested #1–#2
#2 ActionCOACHStable · tested #1–#2
#3 FASTSIGNSModerately sensitive · tested #3–#5
#4 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #4–#9
#5 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #3–#9
#6 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #4–#8
#7 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #3–#14
#8 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #6–#10
#9 Aire ServModerately sensitive · tested #7–#10
#10 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #5–#11
#11 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #4–#13
#12 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #9–#14
#13 Rainbow International RestorationStable · tested #12–#13
#14 PuroCleanModerately sensitive · tested #12–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [5] [7] [8] [27] [28] [29] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [14] [17] [18] [15] [16] [23] [1]Competitive environment: [4] [31] [13] [1]Labor and staffing friction: [6] [7] [26] [28] [29] [2] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [4] [5] [8] [9] [32] [33] [34] [1]Real estate and site feasibility: [10] [11] [12] [13] [20] [19] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [4] [30] [27] [29] [1]Referral ecosystem: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [4]Territory quality: [4] [5] [8] [10] [11] [12] [32] [20]Regulatory and operating friction: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [15] [31] [35] [2]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Transportation, routing, and parking | Referral ecosystem | Territory quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +3.3 pts | — | -0.8 pts | -0.1 pts | +0.4 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #2 ActionCOACH | +2.2 pts | — | -0.2 pts | -0.1 pts | +0.6 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +2.6 pts | — | -0.2 pts | -0.6 pts | +0.1 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #4 HomeSmiles | +1.6 pts | — | -1.0 pts | -0.5 pts | — | -0.5 pts |
| #5 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | — | -0.2 pts | -0.4 pts | — | -0.3 pts |
| #6 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.2 pts | +0.1 pts | — | -0.9 pts | — | -0.5 pts |
| #7 Jan-Pro International | +2.7 pts | — | -3.3 pts | -0.6 pts | — | -0.4 pts |
| #8 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.3 pts | — | -1.2 pts | — | -0.6 pts |
| #9 Aire Serv | +0.4 pts | +0.4 pts | -0.4 pts | -1.4 pts | — | -0.5 pts |
| #10 Mr. Rooter | +0.3 pts | +0.3 pts | — | -1.7 pts | — | -0.6 pts |
| #11 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.5 pts | +0.3 pts | — | -1.9 pts | — | -0.6 pts |
| #12 Workout Anytime | — | — | -2.1 pts | -0.2 pts | — | -1.1 pts |
| #13 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.1 pts | +0.1 pts | -1.8 pts | -1.3 pts | — | -0.6 pts |
| #14 PuroClean | — | +0.1 pts | -1.5 pts | -1.5 pts | — | -0.6 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, ActionCOACH, FASTSIGNS led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to transportation, routing, and parking. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for HomeSmiles, Tiger Adjusters, 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 Atlanta, Georgia
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
66.5Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Atlanta, Georgia
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 66.5 to 66.5. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 66.5. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.1 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 1.7 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.0-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 66.5–66.5
- Category average
- 66.5
Rainbow International Restoration66.5
PuroClean66.5
Metric registry
The 32 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 529,110people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census | Atlanta, Georgia | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 6.1percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census | Atlanta, Georgia | Supports research conclusion | [4] |
| Estimated households in the 2020-2024 period | 236,468households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census | Atlanta, Georgia | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Economic Census revenue and sales in selected Atlanta sectors | retail sales usd thousands: 13,290,849; health care social assistance revenue usd thousands: 13,219,440; transportation warehousing revenue usd thousands: 23,609,220; accommodation food services sales usd thousands: 5,534,887usd thousands | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census | Atlanta, Georgia | Used in scoring | [4] |
| City land area and resident population density | land area square miles: 135.31; population per square mile: 3,685.7mixed | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census | Atlanta, Georgia | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Total housing units and multi-unit share | housing units: 284,949; multi unit share percent: 59; occupied share percent: 86; renter occupied share percent: 52mixed | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates unless otherwise noted | Atlanta, Georgia | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Most metro Atlanta housing units were more than 20 years old; 24 percent were built during the 2000s | majority older than 20 years: yes; built 2000 to 2009 percent: 24mixed | Recent Census housing-age data available in October 2024 | Metro Atlanta housing stock | Used in scoring | [14] |
| Atlanta lies in the Piedmont, where red-clay saprolite is common and can be highly erodible when vegetation is removed | dominant material: red-clay saprolite; documented mechanism: erosion risk after vegetation removalcategorical | Stable geologic and soil characteristics | Georgia Piedmont including Atlanta | Conditional relationship | [17] [1] |
| University extension guidance states that heavy Georgia clay soils can drain poorly and become waterlogged during heavy rain | poor drainage possible: yes; waterlogging during heavy rain: yescategorical | Stable soil-drainage guidance | Heavy-clay soils in Georgia; property-specific applicability required | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| New development and redevelopment generally must manage the first inch of rainfall on-site with green infrastructure | 1inches of rainfall | Ordinance adopted 2013 and updated 2020; current guidance accessed July 2026 | Applicable new development and redevelopment in Atlanta | Conditional relationship | [15] |
| Permitted green-infrastructure practices under Atlanta's post-development ordinance | practices permitted approximate: 5,200; stormwater kept out of system gallons approximate: 1,100,000,000mixed | Ordinance adopted 2013 and updated 2020; current guidance accessed July 2026 | Atlanta, Georgia | Conditional relationship | [15] |
| Metropolitan unemployment rate in May 2026 | 3.2percent not seasonally adjusted | Labor force through May 2026; nonfarm employment through June 2026 | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, Georgia | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Metropolitan total nonfarm employment in June 2026 | 3,127,800jobs preliminary | Labor force through May 2026; nonfarm employment through June 2026 | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, Georgia | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Transportation and material-moving employment concentration and wages | employment: 313,910; employment share percent: 10.9; national share percent: 8.8; mean hourly wage usd: 28.64; national mean hourly wage usd: 23.96mixed | May 2025 | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, Georgia | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Detailed logistics occupations with direct overlap for warehouse, delivery, and fleet-support labor | laborers freight stock material movers: employment: 78,460, location quotient: 1.43, mean hourly wage usd: 20.04; industrial truck tractor operators: employment: 28,750, location quotient: 2, mean hourly wage usd: 22.67; driver sales workers: employment: 12,020, location quotient: 1.58, mean hourly wage usd: 20.65mixed | May 2025 | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, Georgia | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Primary commute modes and telework prevalence in the 20-county Atlanta region | drive alone primary mode percent: 81.6; teleworked at any time percent: 60; full time telework percent: 20; telework primary mode percent: 11.9percent of workers or commuters | 2025 survey; comparisons with 2019 | Twenty-county Atlanta region | Used in scoring | [8] [9] |
| Most-cited barriers to using alternative commute modes | longer trip time percent: 47; no transit available percent: 44percent of survey respondents | 2025 survey; comparisons with 2019 | Twenty-county Atlanta region | Used in scoring | [8] [9] |
| Mean travel time to work for Atlanta city workers and metropolitan comparison | atlanta city minutes: 26.5; atlanta metro minutes: 32.4minutes | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census | Atlanta city and Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell metro | Used in scoring | [4] [5] |
| Atlanta industrial vacancy, rent, and size-segment performance | direct vacancy percent: 8.2; nnn asking rent usd per sqft year: 7.76; smaller legacy product availability direction: rising; bulk distribution demand direction: strongermixed | Second quarter 2026 | Atlanta industrial market | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Large industrial transactions accounted for a substantial share of new leasing volume | share of new leasing over 500k sqft percent: 40.6; number of over 500k sqft deals: 6; all industrial asking rent usd per sqft year: 7.53mixed | Second quarter 2026 | Atlanta industrial market | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Atlanta office availability, asking rent, and recent absorption | availability percent: 30.3; direct asking rent usd per sqft year: 33.77; quarterly net absorption sqft: 543,000mixed | Second quarter 2026 | Atlanta office market | Used in scoring | [12] |
| Atlanta impact fees apply to new or proposed development and fund four facility categories | facility categories: transportation, police, fire, parks; transportation and parks service areas: Northside, Southside, Westside; police and fire scope: citywidecategorical | Current program and 2027-2031 CIE materials accessed July 2026 | New or proposed development in Atlanta | Context only | [19] |
| Commercial and multifamily properties over 25,000 square feet are subject to annual benchmarking and periodic ASHRAE Level II audit requirements | minimum property size sqft: 25,000; benchmarking frequency: annual; audit frequency years: 10; abid ending 6 audit deadline: 2026-12-31mixed | 2026 compliance cycle | Commercial and multifamily properties over 25,000 square feet within Atlanta city limits | Supports modeled relationship | [23] [24] [25] |
| Signs require permitting, and exterior work in historic or landmark districts may require a Certificate of Appropriateness or additional review | sign permit category: yes; historic certificate may apply: yes; special public interest district count minimum: 20categorical | Current requirements accessed July 2026 | Atlanta historic, landmark, overlay, and Special Public Interest districts | Used in scoring | [20] [21] [22] |
| Georgia Tech enrollment and physical-facility scale | undergraduate enrollment: 21,028; graduate enrollment: 35,687; institute facility sqft: 15,318,523; occupied student and greek housing beds: 9,786mixed | Fall 2025 census | Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta; enrollment includes programs with varying physical presence | Supports modeled relationship | [26] [27] |
| Emory University and healthcare scale in metro Atlanta | undergraduate students: 8,341; graduate professional students: 8,170; staff members minimum: 14,500; healthcare locations minimum: 625; patients served annually minimum: 850,000; atlanta alumni minimum: 51,800mixed | Current institutional facts accessed July 2026 | Emory University and Emory Healthcare in metro Atlanta | Supports modeled relationship | [28] |
| Woodruff Health Sciences Center employees, facilities, and patient base | employees: 37,141; net facility sqft: 5,700,000; unique patients annually: 787,450; hospital beds: 2,746mixed | Fiscal year 2024 unless otherwise specified | Emory health-sciences and healthcare network in metro Atlanta and Georgia | Supports modeled relationship | [29] |
| City suppliers use a registration and electronic-bid process with current opportunities and training resources | supplier registration required: yes; electronic bids supported: yes; training resources available: yescategorical | Supplier portal and bid process current as referenced by City business pages | City of Atlanta procurement | Supports modeled relationship | [30] |
| Businesses operating within Atlanta city limits must obtain an Occupational Tax Certificate | yesboolean | Current requirements and May 2026 newsletter reference | Atlanta, Georgia | Context only | [31] |
| Active I-285 construction affects two metro corridors with route-specific applicability | i285 west pavement replacement: corridor miles: 5.3, construction percent complete: 15.46, status: under construction; i285 i20 east interchange: status: under construction, scope: interchange reconstruction and adjacent auxiliary or collector-distributor lanesmixed | Current project status accessed July 2026 | I-285 west Fulton corridor and I-285/I-20 east DeKalb corridor | Used in scoring | [32] [33] |
| City transportation projects are distributed across multiple corridors and council districts with differing phases | active project phases include: planning scoping, engineering design, procurement, construction, closeout; examples in construction: South Broad Street, Edgewood Avenue, Auburn Avenue, Pryor Roadcategorical | Current project phases accessed July 2026 | City of Atlanta transportation project inventory | Conditional relationship | [34] |
| New permit applications must comply with newly adopted Georgia building-code editions beginning in early 2026 | effective for submissions: 2026-01-01; full new application transition: 2026-02-01; major codes: 2024 IBC, 2024 IRC, 2024 IMC, 2024 IPC, 2023 NECcategorical | Codes effective for new permit submissions beginning January-February 2026 | New construction permit applications in Atlanta | Context only | [35] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects whose applicability is established at the report’s current geographic and operating scope.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 72.74 after target-market demand +3.3 pts, labor and staffing friction -0.8 pts, referral ecosystem +0.4 pts, transportation, routing, and parking -0.1 pts, and territory quality -0.1 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the claims or metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is clearly distinguished from publicly accessible evidence.
- 1Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Franchise Opportunities in Tier-1 U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Atlanta lies in the Piedmont, where red-clay saprolite is common and can be highly erodible when vegetation is removed
- 2Structural Constraints and Hidden Municipal Costs: A Forensic Audit of Ten U.S. JurisdictionsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - Combine2(44).csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4QuickFacts: Atlanta city, Georgia
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Estimated households in the 2020-2024 period, Economic Census revenue and sales in selected Atlanta sectors, and City land area and resident population density
- 5Atlanta, GA Profile Data
Used for: Total housing units and multi-unit share and Mean travel time to work for Atlanta city workers and metropolitan comparison
- 6Occupational Employment and Wages in Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA — May 2025
Used for: Transportation and material-moving employment concentration and wages and Detailed logistics occupations with direct overlap for warehouse, delivery, and fleet-support labor
- 7Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Economy at a Glance
Used for: Metropolitan unemployment rate in May 2026 and Metropolitan total nonfarm employment in June 2026
- 82025 Regional Commuter Survey
Used for: Primary commute modes and telework prevalence in the 20-county Atlanta region and Most-cited barriers to using alternative commute modes
- 9ARC's 2025 Regional Commuter Survey Reveals 'New Normal' for Metro Atlanta Commutes
Used for: Primary commute modes and telework prevalence in the 20-county Atlanta region and Most-cited barriers to using alternative commute modes
- 10Atlanta Industrial Figures Report Q2 2026
Used for: Atlanta industrial vacancy, rent, and size-segment performance
- 11Atlanta Industrial MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Large industrial transactions accounted for a substantial share of new leasing volume
- 12Atlanta Office Figures Q2 2026
Used for: Atlanta office availability, asking rent, and recent absorption
- 13
- 14Most metro Atlanta housing units are 20-plus years old
Used for: Most metro Atlanta housing units were more than 20 years old; 24 percent were built during the 2000s
- 15Post-Development Stormwater Management Ordinance
Used for: New development and redevelopment generally must manage the first inch of rainfall on-site with green infrastructure and Permitted green-infrastructure practices under Atlanta's post-development ordinance
- 16
- 17Piedmont Geographic Region
Used for: Atlanta lies in the Piedmont, where red-clay saprolite is common and can be highly erodible when vegetation is removed
- 18The Goldilocks Dilemma: Watering Your Landscape
Used for: University extension guidance states that heavy Georgia clay soils can drain poorly and become waterlogged during heavy rain
- 19Capital Improvement Element and Development Impact Fees
Used for: Atlanta impact fees apply to new or proposed development and fund four facility categories
- 20Getting Started with Zoning, Development, and Permitting Services
Used for: Signs require permitting, and exterior work in historic or landmark districts may require a Certificate of Appropriateness or additional review
- 21Historic Preservation
Used for: Signs require permitting, and exterior work in historic or landmark districts may require a Certificate of Appropriateness or additional review
- 22Online Permitting
Used for: Signs require permitting, and exterior work in historic or landmark districts may require a Certificate of Appropriateness or additional review
- 23Audit Requirement
Used for: Commercial and multifamily properties over 25,000 square feet are subject to annual benchmarking and periodic ASHRAE Level II audit requirements
- 24BenchmarkATL Compliance
Used for: Commercial and multifamily properties over 25,000 square feet are subject to annual benchmarking and periodic ASHRAE Level II audit requirements
- 25Atlanta Code of Ordinances, Commercial Building Energy Efficiency Ordinance
Used for: Commercial and multifamily properties over 25,000 square feet are subject to annual benchmarking and periodic ASHRAE Level II audit requirements
- 26Student Demographics, Fall 2025
Used for: Georgia Tech enrollment and physical-facility scale
- 27Facilities and Housing, Fall 2025
Used for: Georgia Tech enrollment and physical-facility scale
- 28Facts and Figures
Used for: Emory University and healthcare scale in metro Atlanta
- 29Comprehensive Figures
Used for: Woodruff Health Sciences Center employees, facilities, and patient base
- 30Mayor Dickens Announces Launch of ATLSuppliers.com
Used for: City suppliers use a registration and electronic-bid process with current opportunities and training resources
- 31Apply for a New Business Occupational Tax Certificate
Used for: Businesses operating within Atlanta city limits must obtain an Occupational Tax Certificate
- 32I-285 from SR 14 to Mt. Gilead Road Pavement Replacement
Used for: Active I-285 construction affects two metro corridors with route-specific applicability
- 33I-285 at I-20 East Side Interchange Reconstruction
Used for: Active I-285 construction affects two metro corridors with route-specific applicability
- 34Atlanta Department of Transportation Projects
Used for: City transportation projects are distributed across multiple corridors and council districts with differing phases
- 35Current Georgia Minimum Codes for Construction
Used for: New permit applications must comply with newly adopted Georgia building-code editions beginning in early 2026
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.