Local operating-model alignment analysis
Compare 14 franchise concepts in Augusta and see how $16.83 per hour versus $19.66 U.S. mean building/grounds wage shaped local-alignment scores.
Bottom line
We compared 14 franchise concepts against Augusta's local operating conditions. The $16.83 per hour versus $19.66 U.S. mean mean wage for building and grounds occupations across Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area created one of the strongest positive local signals for concepts exposed to low local occupational wage cost environment. [5] Augusta's 50.8% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing share created one of the more important local constraints for concepts exposed to low homeownership concentration. [1] [3] [2]
City Wide Facility Solutions scored 70.83. It leads FASTSIGNS by 0.10 points. For Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area, the documented healthcare practitioner and technical employment share is 7.9% of metro employment versus 6.3% U.S. For City Wide Facility Solutions, this was the largest positive contribution, adding 0.36 points through healthcare institutional service demand. [5] [11] The model applied its general operating-friction guardrail at 0.10 points. The largest direct difference versus FASTSIGNS came from the 7.9% of metro employment versus 6.3% U.S. healthcare practitioner and technical employment share reported for Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area, which contributed +0.36 points to City Wide Facility Solutions versus +0.04 points to FASTSIGNS. [5] [11]
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 | 70.83Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.36 pts7.9% of metro employment versus 6.3% U.S | -0.10 ptsgeneral operating-friction guardrail | High evidence confidence |
| 2 | FASTSIGNSSigns & GraphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 Item 7 source | 70.74Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.21 ptsNearly 9,000 residential permits processed in 2025 residential… | -0.10 ptsgeneral operating-friction guardrail | High evidence confidence |
| 3 | PuroCleanProperty RestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 Item 7 source | 70.39Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.30 ptsOfficial local hazard information identifies severe storms… | -0.49 pts50.8% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing share | High evidence confidence |
| 4 | JAN-PRO InternationalFranchise Consulting TrainingInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 Item 7 source | 70.35Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.18 pts7.5% of metro employment versus 5.5% U.S | -0.13 pts$178,500 median owner-occupied home value | High evidence confidence |
| 5 | ActionCOACHBusiness CoachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 Item 7 source | 70.09Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.14 pts7.5% of metro employment versus 5.5% U.S | -0.10 ptsgeneral operating-friction guardrail | High evidence confidence |
| 6 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome InspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 Item 7 source | 69.86Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.41 pts16.0% moved since the previous year recent-mover share | -0.73 pts50.8% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing share | High evidence confidence |
| 7 | Mr. RooterPlumbing & Drain ServicesInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 Item 7 source | 69.86Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.40 pts$16.83 per hour versus $19.66 U.S | -0.72 pts50.8% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing share | High evidence confidence |
| 8 | Rainbow International RestorationProperty RestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 Item 7 source | 69.86Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.27 pts$16.83 per hour versus $19.66 U.S | -0.49 pts50.8% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing share | High evidence confidence |
| 9 | ZOOM DRAINPlumbing & Drain ServicesInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 Item 7 source | 69.82Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.40 pts$16.83 per hour versus $19.66 U.S | -0.72 pts50.8% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing share | High evidence confidence |
| 10 | Tiger AdjustersPublic Adjusting & Claims AdvocacyInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 Item 7 source | 69.75Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.16 ptsOfficial local hazard information identifies severe storms… | -0.65 pts50.8% owner-occupied 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: skilled trade labor, technical labor, and administrative labor.
Most relevant modeled attributes: household affluence dependency, discretionary consumer spend, and health wellness discretionary demand.
Most relevant modeled attributes: recurring commercial demand, institutional sales, and industrial facility dependency.
Most relevant modeled attributes: multi family housing dependency.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7.9% of metro employment versus 6.3% U.S. healthcare practitioner and technical employment share [5] [11] | +0.36 pts | +0.04 pts | +0.32 pts |
| Nearly 9,000 residential permits processed in 2025 residential permits processed [7] [8] | 0.00 pts | +0.21 pts | -0.21 pts |
| 49.2% renter-occupied (derived as 100% - 50.8% owner-occupied) renter-occupied housing share [1] [2] | +0.19 pts | +0.10 pts | +0.10 pts |
| $16.83 per hour versus $19.66 U.S. mean mean wage for building and grounds occupations [5] | +0.10 pts | +0.18 pts | -0.08 pts |
The 7.9% of metro employment versus 6.3% U.S. healthcare practitioner and technical employment share reported for Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area created the largest modeled gap in this head-to-head: +0.36 points for City Wide Facility Solutions versus +0.04 points for FASTSIGNS. [5] [11]
City Wide Facility Solutions, FASTSIGNS, and PuroClean gained more than the rest of the field from 7.5% of metro employment versus 5.5% U.S. production occupation employment share and 49.2% renter-occupied (derived as 100% - 50.8% owner-occupied) renter-occupied housing share through target-market demand. The ordering is assumption-sensitive for City Wide Facility Solutions, FASTSIGNS, and PuroClean 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. [7] [5] [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 | +0.83 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.10 |
| 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 | 70.834 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.83 |
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
70.12 average across 2 concepts
0.26 points average among 13 affected concepts
0.28 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 10 positions
Conditions that changed the analysis
This relationship affected 13 concepts and added 0.26 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: $16.83 per hour versus $19.66 U.S. mean mean wage for building and grounds occupations. [5]
This relationship affected 9 concepts and reduced 0.69 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: 50.8% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing share. [1] [2] [3]
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: 5 advantages and 1 constraint. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.033 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 7.9% of metro employment versus 6.3% U.S. healthcare practitioner and technical employment shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #1 without this driver. | +0.36 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| 49.2% renter-occupied (derived as 100% - 50.8% owner-occupied) renter-occupied housing share | +0.19 pts | HighEvidence |
| 7.5% of metro employment versus 5.5% U.S. production occupation employment share | +0.17 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| 12,337 students enrolled in Fall 2025 augusta University enrollment | +0.08 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $16.83 per hour versus $19.66 U.S. mean mean wage for building and grounds occupations | +0.10 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| general operating-friction guardrail | -0.10 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected institution campus
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 | +0.83 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.10 |
| 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 | 70.834 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.83 |
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.
6 material local relationships changed this score: 5 advantages and 1 constraint. 2 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.067 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Nearly 9,000 residential permits processed in 2025 residential permits processedLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #2 without this driver. | +0.21 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| 7.5% of metro employment versus 5.5% U.S. production occupation employment share | +0.20 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| 49.2% renter-occupied (derived as 100% - 50.8% owner-occupied) renter-occupied housing share | +0.10 pts | HighEvidence |
| 12,337 students enrolled in Fall 2025 augusta University enrollment | +0.08 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $16.83 per hour versus $19.66 U.S. mean mean wage for building and grounds occupations | +0.18 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| general operating-friction guardrail | -0.10 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected institution campus
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 | +0.66 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.18 |
| 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 | 70.736 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.74 |
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: 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. 3 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.088 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 50.8% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #3 to #1 without this driver. | -0.49 pts | HighEvidence |
| 7.5% of metro employment versus 5.5% U.S. production occupation employment share | +0.13 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| 49.2% renter-occupied (derived as 100% - 50.8% owner-occupied) renter-occupied housing share | +0.09 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Official local hazard information identifies severe storms, tornadoes, flooding, extreme temperatures, and hurricanes among Augusta-Richmond County hazards severe-weather hazard profile | +0.30 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $16.83 per hour versus $19.66 U.S. mean mean wage for building and grounds occupations | +0.27 pts | HighEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected floodplain
Applicability depends on the selected institution campus
Applicability depends on the selected corridor
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 | -0.18 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.30 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.27 |
| 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.388 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.39 |
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.
5 material local relationships changed this score: 4 advantages and 1 constraint. 2 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.042 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 7.5% of metro employment versus 5.5% U.S. production occupation employment shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #4 without this driver. | +0.18 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| $178,500 median owner-occupied home value | -0.13 pts | HighEvidence |
| 49.2% renter-occupied (derived as 100% - 50.8% owner-occupied) renter-occupied housing share | +0.12 pts | HighEvidence |
| 12,337 students enrolled in Fall 2025 augusta University enrollment | +0.06 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $16.83 per hour versus $19.66 U.S. mean mean wage for building and grounds occupations | +0.07 pts | HighEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected institution campus
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 | +0.28 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.350 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.35 |
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.
2 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 1 constraint. 3 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.056 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 7.5% of metro employment versus 5.5% U.S. production occupation employment shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #5 without this driver. | +0.14 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| general operating-friction guardrail | -0.10 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected institution campus
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 | +0.19 |
| 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 | -0.10 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.093 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.09 |
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: Moderately 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.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 50.8% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #6 to #5 without this driver. | -0.73 pts | HighEvidence |
| 16.0% moved since the previous year recent-mover share | +0.41 pts | HighEvidence |
| $178,500 median owner-occupied home value | -0.11 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $16.83 per hour versus $19.66 U.S. mean mean wage for building and grounds occupations | +0.29 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 | -0.43 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.29 |
| 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.864 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.86 |
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.
4 material local relationships changed this score: 3 advantages and 1 constraint. 4 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.016 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 50.8% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #7 without this driver. | -0.72 pts | HighEvidence |
| 7.5% of metro employment versus 5.5% U.S. production occupation employment share | +0.11 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| 49.2% renter-occupied (derived as 100% - 50.8% owner-occupied) renter-occupied housing share | +0.06 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $16.83 per hour versus $19.66 U.S. mean mean wage for building and grounds occupations | +0.40 pts | HighEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected corridor
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 | -0.54 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.40 |
| 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.859 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.86 |
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: 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. 3 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.072 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 50.8% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #8 to #9 without this driver. | -0.49 pts | HighEvidence |
| 14.0% of persons under 65 without health insurance under-65 uninsured share | -0.44 pts | HighEvidence |
| 365,203 screened passengers in 2025 augusta Regional Airport screened passengers | +0.09 pts | HighEvidence |
| 49.2% renter-occupied (derived as 100% - 50.8% owner-occupied) renter-occupied housing share | +0.08 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $16.83 per hour versus $19.66 U.S. mean mean wage for building and grounds occupations | +0.27 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Official local hazard information identifies severe storms, tornadoes, flooding, extreme temperatures, and hurricanes among Augusta-Richmond County hazards severe-weather hazard profile | +0.26 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected floodplain
Applicability depends on the selected corridor
Applicability depends on the selected institution campus
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 | -0.68 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.26 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.27 |
| 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.859 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.86 |
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.
5 material local relationships changed this score: 3 advantages and 2 constraints. 3 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.069 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 50.8% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #9 to #4 without this driver. | -0.72 pts | HighEvidence |
| $178,500 median owner-occupied home value | -0.11 pts | HighEvidence |
| 49.2% renter-occupied (derived as 100% - 50.8% owner-occupied) renter-occupied housing share | +0.10 pts | HighEvidence |
| 7.5% of metro employment versus 5.5% U.S. production occupation employment share | +0.09 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $16.83 per hour versus $19.66 U.S. mean mean wage for building and grounds occupations | +0.40 pts | HighEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected corridor
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 | +0.40 |
| 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.822 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.82 |
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: 3 advantages and 1 constraint. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.012 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Official local hazard information identifies severe storms, tornadoes, flooding, extreme temperatures, and hurricanes among Augusta-Richmond County hazards severe-weather hazard profile | +0.16 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $16.83 per hour versus $19.66 U.S. mean mean wage for building and grounds occupations | +0.15 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 | -0.56 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.16 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.15 |
| 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.752 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.75 |
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.
5 material local relationships changed this score: 3 advantages and 2 constraints.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 50.8% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #11 to #8 without this driver. | -0.73 pts | HighEvidence |
| $178,500 median owner-occupied home value | -0.11 pts | HighEvidence |
| 7.5% of metro employment versus 5.5% U.S. production occupation employment share | +0.06 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| 49.2% renter-occupied (derived as 100% - 50.8% owner-occupied) renter-occupied housing share | +0.06 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $16.83 per hour versus $19.66 U.S. mean mean wage for building and grounds occupations | +0.41 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 | -0.72 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.41 |
| 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.695 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.70 |
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: 4 advantages and 2 constraints. 2 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.048 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 50.8% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #12 to #6 without this driver. | -0.80 pts | HighEvidence |
| $178,500 median owner-occupied home value | -0.18 pts | HighEvidence |
| 7.9% of metro employment versus 6.3% U.S. healthcare practitioner and technical employment share | +0.15 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| 49.2% renter-occupied (derived as 100% - 50.8% owner-occupied) renter-occupied housing share | +0.08 pts | HighEvidence |
| 12,337 students enrolled in Fall 2025 augusta University enrollment | +0.07 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $16.83 per hour versus $19.66 U.S. mean mean wage for building and grounds occupations | +0.32 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 | -0.63 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.32 |
| 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.688 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.69 |
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.
3 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 2 constraints.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $16.83 per hour versus $19.66 U.S. mean mean wage for building and grounds occupations | +0.34 pts | HighEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected corridor
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 | -1.00 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.34 |
| 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.342 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.34 |
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: Stable
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: 1 advantage and 3 constraints.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $178,500 median owner-occupied home valueLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #14 to #13 without this driver. | -0.54 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Covered food-service establishments discharging to the City sewer system must obtain a FOG Wastewater Discharge Permit. fOG wastewater discharge permit requirement for covered food-service establishments | -0.21 pts | HighEvidence |
| 6.5% increase in residential and commercial water and sewer rates from 2025 to 2026 augusta Utilities annual water and sewer rate increase | -0.20 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $16.83 per hour versus $19.66 U.S. mean mean wage for building and grounds occupations | +0.15 pts | HighEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected floodplain
Applicability depends on the selected historic district
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 | -0.54 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.15 |
| 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 | -0.41 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.202 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.20 |
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 #12, 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 3 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 8 concepts changed position. Rainbow International Restoration moved from #8 to #11, 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 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. Tiger Adjusters moved from #10 to #6, 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 4 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 2 concepts changed position. Workout Anytime moved from #14 to #13, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
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 | +0.80 pts | — | +0.10 pts | -0.10 pts |
| #2 FASTSIGNS | +0.70 pts | — | +0.20 pts | -0.10 pts |
| #3 PuroClean | -0.20 pts | +0.30 pts | +0.30 pts | — |
| #4 JAN-PRO International | +0.30 pts | — | +0.10 pts | — |
| #5 ActionCOACH | +0.20 pts | — | — | -0.10 pts |
| #6 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | -0.40 pts | — | +0.30 pts | — |
| #7 Mr. Rooter | -0.50 pts | — | +0.40 pts | — |
| #8 Rainbow International Restoration | -0.70 pts | +0.30 pts | +0.30 pts | — |
| #9 ZOOM DRAIN | -0.60 pts | — | +0.40 pts | — |
| #10 Tiger Adjusters | -0.60 pts | +0.20 pts | +0.10 pts | — |
| #11 Aire Serv | -0.70 pts | — | +0.40 pts | — |
| #12 HomeSmiles | -0.60 pts | — | +0.30 pts | — |
| #13 Mister Sparky Electric | -1.00 pts | — | +0.30 pts | — |
| #14 Workout Anytime | -0.50 pts | — | +0.20 pts | -0.40 pts |
Interpretation
City Wide Facility Solutions, FASTSIGNS, and PuroClean gained more than the rest of the field from 7.5% of metro employment versus 5.5% U.S. production occupation employment share and 49.2% renter-occupied (derived as 100% - 50.8% owner-occupied) renter-occupied housing share through target-market demand. The ordering is assumption-sensitive for City Wide Facility Solutions, FASTSIGNS, and PuroClean 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 69.86 to 70.39. PuroClean ranked highest at 70.39. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.28 points on average among the affected concepts. Target-market demand reduced the exposed concepts by 0.43 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.53-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 69.82 to 69.86. Mr. Rooter ranked highest at 69.86. Labor and staffing friction added 0.40 points on average among the affected concepts. Target-market demand reduced the exposed concepts by 0.56 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.04-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 change since 2020 | 0.0% change from April 1, 2020 base to July 1, 2025 | 2020-2024 and July 1, 2025 | Augusta, Georgia | Context only | [1] |
| Population density | 668.5 persons per square mile | 2020-2024 and July 1, 2025 | Augusta, Georgia | Context only | [1] |
| Household count | 75,222 households | 2020-2024 and July 1, 2025 | Augusta, Georgia | Context only | [1] |
| Housing unit count | 93,145 housing units | 2024 ACS 5-year | Augusta, Georgia | Context only | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing share | 50.8% owner-occupied | 2020-2024 and July 1, 2025 | Augusta, Georgia | Used in scoring | [1] [2] [3] |
| Renter-occupied housing share | 49.2% renter-occupied (derived as 100% - 50.8% owner-occupied) | 2020-2024 and July 1, 2025 | Augusta, Georgia | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Median owner-occupied home value | $178,500 median owner-occupied home value | 2024 ACS 5-year | Augusta, Georgia | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Median household income | $55,485 median household income | 2020-2024 and July 1, 2025 | Augusta, Georgia | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Poverty rate | 20.1% of persons in poverty | 2020-2024 and July 1, 2025 | Augusta, Georgia | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Recent-mover share | 16.0% moved since the previous year | 2024 ACS 5-year | Augusta, Georgia | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Age 65+ population share | 15.3% age 65 or older | 2020-2024 and July 1, 2025 | Augusta, Georgia | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Under-18 population share | 22.8% under age 18 | 2020-2024 and July 1, 2025 | Augusta, Georgia | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Under-65 disability share | 15.0% of persons under 65 with a disability | 2020-2024 and July 1, 2025 | Augusta, Georgia | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Under-65 uninsured share | 14.0% of persons under 65 without health insurance | 2020-2024 and July 1, 2025 | Augusta, Georgia | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Civilian labor-force participation | 58.5% of population age 16+ in the civilian labor force | 2020-2024 and July 1, 2025 | Augusta, Georgia | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Mean travel time to work | 21.1 minutes mean travel time to work | 2020-2024 and July 1, 2025 | Augusta, Georgia | Context only | [1] [4] |
| Household broadband subscription | 87.7% of households with broadband Internet subscription | 2020-2024 and July 1, 2025 | Augusta, Georgia | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Retail sales per capita | $17,841 retail sales per capita | 2020-2024 and July 1, 2025 | Augusta, Georgia | Context only | [1] |
| Mean hourly wage, all occupations | $28.85 per hour versus $33.54 U.S. mean | May 2025 | Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [5] |
| Food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | $14.22 per hour versus $17.86 U.S. mean | May 2025 | Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Mean hourly wage for building and grounds occupations | $16.83 per hour versus $19.66 U.S. mean | May 2025 | Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Office and administrative support mean hourly wage | $21.98 per hour versus $24.79 U.S. mean | May 2025 | Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Construction and extraction mean hourly wage | $26.83 per hour versus $31.42 U.S. mean | May 2025 | Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Installation, maintenance and repair mean hourly wage | $27.89 per hour versus $30.44 U.S. mean | May 2025 | Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Production occupation employment share | 7.5% of metro employment versus 5.5% U.S. | May 2025 | Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Healthcare practitioner and technical employment share | 7.9% of metro employment versus 6.3% U.S. | May 2025 | Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Food preparation and serving employment share | 9.8% of metro employment versus 8.8% U.S. | May 2025 | Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [5] |
| Augusta Regional Airport screened passengers | 365,203 screened passengers in 2025 | 2025 | Augusta Regional Airport | Used in scoring | [12] |
| Visitor spending | $890 million in visitor spending | 2025 | Augusta, Georgia | Supports modeled relationship | [13] |
| Meeting attendees | 179,000 meeting attendees | 2025 | Augusta, Georgia | Supports modeled relationship | [13] |
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 Augusta, City Wide Facility Solutions reached 70.834. Target-market demand combined several local relationships for a net +0.83 points. [5] [11] [1] [2] Labor and staffing friction totaled +0.10 points, led by $16.83 per hour versus $19.66 u.s. mean mean wage for building and grounds occupations at +0.10 points. [5] Regulatory and operating friction netted to -0.10 points after combining observed local relationships with a conservative or model-applied adjustment.
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 change since 2020, Population density, Household count, Owner-occupied housing share, and Renter-occupied housing share
Used for: Owner-occupied housing share, Renter-occupied housing share, Median household income, Poverty rate, and Age 65+ population share
Used for: Owner-occupied housing share
Used for: Housing unit count, Median owner-occupied home value, Recent-mover share, and Mean travel time to work
Used for: Mean hourly wage, all occupations, Food preparation and serving mean hourly wage, Mean hourly wage for building and grounds occupations, Office and administrative support mean hourly wage, and Construction and extraction mean hourly wage
Used for: Augusta Regional Airport screened passengers
Used for: Visitor spending and Meeting attendees
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
