69.2 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Austin, Texas
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Austin, Texas. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Territory and submarket uncertainty 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
23Sources used
14Primary sources
23Local 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
1.4 points average among 11 affected concepts
0.8 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 9 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Austin, Texas
City Wide, ActionCOACH, and Jan-Pro International 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. Territory and submarket uncertainty was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.8 points on average. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 73.8Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +3.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 72.8Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 72.3Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.0 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.8 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 69.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.8 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 69.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.0 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 69.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.7 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 69.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.9 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Austin, Texas
Large resident, household, employment, and business base
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 1.2 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Estimated households in 2024: 484,550 households. [6] [8]
Material variation across office, retail, regulatory, and access submarkets
This relationship affected 14 concepts and reduced 0.8 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Retail vacancy and rent vary materially by Austin-area submarket: lowest named city submarket vacancy percent: 1.4; lowest named city submarket: Southeast; highest named city submarket vacancy percent: 11.6; highest named city submarket: Northeast; cbd vacancy percent: 1.6; cbd net asking rent usd psf year: 35 percent and usd per square foot per year. [18] [15] [2]
population_access_mismatch
Resident and household scale supports a broad addressable market, but it does not establish weekday downtown walk-in demand. The CBD office vacancy rate was 31.0% in Q2 2026, while office and retail conditions varied materially by submarket, so site and daypart assumptions must be resolved separately. [5] [6] [15] [18]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large resident, household, employment, and business base1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
University and government institutional account base3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Selected metropolitan sector employment in June 2026: professional and business services jobs: 293,100; government jobs: 212,300; private education and health services jobs: 171,600; construction and mining logging jobs: 99,700 [8]
- University of Texas at Austin enrollment, faculty, and research scale: fall 2025 enrollment: 55,000; fall 2025 faculty: 4,693; fy2025 research expenditures usd: 1,370,000,000 mixed [10]
- City vendor and solicitation access requires use of formal procurement systems: vendor registration available: yes; solicitation search available: yes; nigp commodity codes used: yes; small business participation program: yes process features [11]
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Institutional professional relationship baseReferral ecosystem
Tight retail availability and elevated asking rents for customer-facing sites1 modeled effect
Fixed-location occupancy cost pressureReal estate and site feasibility
Active I-35 Capital Express North construction1 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Annual commercial-building energy benchmarking requirement1 local fact · 2 modeled effects · 1 source
- Commercial ECAD benchmarking and reporting threshold: minimum building size sqft: 10,000; annual reporting deadline: June 1; requires austin energy service: yes; requires city limits location: yes rule thresholds [21]
Facility compliance burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Energy-retrofit service demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Scenic-roadway freestanding-sign controls1 modeled effect
Signage and prototype adaptation burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Material variation across office, retail, regulatory, and access submarkets1 modeled effect
Territory and submarket uncertaintyTerritory quality
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 alignment73.8
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +3.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Territory quality
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 | +3.5 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +3.81 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +3.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | -0.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 73.81 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +3.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.8
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +2.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 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 | +2.3 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.7 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.2 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.75 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.1 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.7 |
| Territory quality | -0.2 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.75 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#3
#3Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.3
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +2.9 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 | +2.9 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.30 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 72.30 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#4
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +2.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.0 pts Territory quality
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 | +2.7 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -1.0 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.8 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 | +1.09 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.8 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.1 |
| Territory quality | -1.0 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.09 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#13
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.8 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 | +1.7 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.82 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.8 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.82 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#7
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Territory quality
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Territory quality |
| -0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.20 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 69.80 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#9
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.8 pts Territory quality
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Territory quality |
| -0.8 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.42 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.8 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.58 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#7
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.0 pts Territory quality
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Territory quality |
| -1.0 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.48 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -1.0 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.52 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#12
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.7 pts Territory quality
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Territory quality |
| -0.7 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.52 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
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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.7 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.48 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#10
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.9 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Territory quality |
| -0.9 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.57 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.9 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.43 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.4 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#11
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.2
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.9 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Territory quality |
| -0.9 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.75 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.9 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.25 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#11
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.2
Mister Sparky Electric
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.8 pts Territory quality
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Territory quality |
| -0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.84 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.8 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.16 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.1
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.9 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Territory quality |
| -0.9 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.87 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.9 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.13 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment66.4
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.8 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.8 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -1.8 pts |
| Net local movement | -3.55 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.8 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -1.8 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 66.45 |
| Published local-market alignment | 66.4 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #14–#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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +3.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | -0.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 73.81 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.8 |
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, 13 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #4 to #13, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted11 of 14
Average among affected+1.4 pts
Average across all concepts+1.1 pts
Concepts changing rank13
What we observed
- Resident Population Estimate On July 1, 20251,002,632 people
- Estimated Households In 2024484,550 households
- Covered Establishments, Employment, And Average Weekly Wages In Q4 2025establishments: 76,604; employment: 1,316,516; average weekly wage usd: 1,878 mixed
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+3.5 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+2.9 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+2.7 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+2.3 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.7 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Real estate and site feasibility
We applied site and operating-base constraints only to concepts requiring comparable storefront, production, warehouse, or fleet space.
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-0.9 pts
Average across all concepts-0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank0
What we observed
- Austin Metropolitan Retail Vacancy And Asking Rent In Q1 2026direct vacancy percent: 3.3; average net asking rent usd psf year: 27.21; quarterly net absorption sqft: 52,984 mixed
- Retail Vacancy And Rent Vary Materially By Austin Area Submarketlowest named city submarket vacancy percent: 1.4; lowest named city submarket: Southeast; highest named city submarket vacancy percent: 11.6; highest named city submarket: Northeast; cbd vacancy percent: 1.6; cbd net asking rent usd psf year: 35 percent and usd per square foot per year
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-1.8 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-0.8 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
-0.1 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Referral ecosystem
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 3 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 2 concepts changed position. ActionCOACH moved from #2 to #3, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted3 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank2
Concepts helped most
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.7 pts
City WideFacility management
+0.5 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, 4 concepts changed position. Tiger Adjusters moved from #6 to #9, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-0.8 pts
Average across all concepts-0.8 pts
Concepts changing rank4
What we observed
- Retail Vacancy And Rent Vary Materially By Austin Area Submarketlowest named city submarket vacancy percent: 1.4; lowest named city submarket: Southeast; highest named city submarket vacancy percent: 11.6; highest named city submarket: Northeast; cbd vacancy percent: 1.6; cbd net asking rent usd psf year: 35 percent and usd per square foot per year
- Office Vacancy Varies Sharply Across Austin Submarketscbd vacancy percent: 31; central vacancy percent: 11.2; northeast vacancy percent: 49.8; east vacancy percent: 45; southwest vacancy percent: 17.1; cbd class a asking rent usd psf year: 69.27 percent and usd per square foot per year
- Austin Spans Distinct Western And Eastern Ecological And Soil Regionswestern region: Balcones Canyonlands and Edwards Plateau; eastern region: Northern Blackland Prairie named regions
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-1.8 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-1.0 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.0 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.9 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.9 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Property replacement-cycle demandNo material score adjustment
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Labor and staffing frictionNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo 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 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #1–#3
#3 Jan-Pro InternationalModerately sensitive · tested #2–#4
#4 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #4–#13
#5 HomeSmilesModerately sensitive · tested #5–#7
#6 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #3–#9
#7 Aire ServStable · tested #6–#7
#8 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #6–#12
#9 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #5–#10
#10 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #8–#11
#11 Rainbow International RestorationModerately sensitive · tested #9–#11
#12 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #8–#12
#13 PuroCleanModerately sensitive · tested #10–#13
#14 Workout AnytimeStable · tested #14–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
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: [5] [6] [7] [8] [10] [14] [15] [18] [4]Property replacement-cycle demand: [12] [13] [6] [7] [21] [2]Competitive environment: [8] [6] [11] [4]Labor and staffing friction: [8] [9] [10] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [20] [3] [4]Real estate and site feasibility: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [23] [2] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [11] [8] [10] [6]Referral ecosystem: [10] [8] [11] [6]Territory quality: [15] [18] [13] [20] [23] [4]Regulatory and operating friction: [19] [21] [22] [23] [11] [3] [4]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Real estate and site feasibility | Referral ecosystem | Territory quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +3.5 pts | — | +0.5 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #2 ActionCOACH | +2.3 pts | -0.1 pts | +0.7 pts | -0.2 pts |
| #3 Jan-Pro International | +2.9 pts | — | — | -0.6 pts |
| #4 FASTSIGNS | +2.7 pts | -0.8 pts | +0.1 pts | -1.0 pts |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +1.7 pts | — | — | -0.8 pts |
| #6 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | — | — | -0.5 pts |
| #7 Aire Serv | +0.4 pts | — | — | -0.8 pts |
| #8 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.5 pts | — | — | -1.0 pts |
| #9 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.2 pts | — | — | -0.7 pts |
| #10 Mr. Rooter | +0.4 pts | — | — | -0.9 pts |
| #11 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.1 pts | — | — | -0.9 pts |
| #12 Mister Sparky Electric | — | — | — | -0.8 pts |
| #13 PuroClean | — | — | — | -0.9 pts |
| #14 Workout Anytime | — | -1.8 pts | — | -1.8 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, ActionCOACH, Jan-Pro International led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to territory quality. 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 FASTSIGNS, Tiger Adjusters, ZOOM DRAIN; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Austin, Texas
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.2Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Austin, Texas
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.1 to 69.2. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 69.2. Target-market demand added 0.1 points on average among the affected concepts. Territory quality reduced the exposed concepts by 0.9 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.1-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 69.1–69.2
- Category average
- 69.2
Rainbow International Restoration69.2
PuroClean69.1
Metric registry
The 23 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 | 1,002,632people | July 1, 2025 population estimate and April 1, 2020 estimate base | Austin, Texas | Used in scoring | [5] [7] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 4.6percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate and April 1, 2020 estimate base | Austin, Texas | Context only | [5] |
| Estimated households in 2024 | 484,550households | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates; 2020 Decennial Census where identified | Austin, Texas | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Estimated total housing units in 2024 | 518,574housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates; 2020 Decennial Census where identified | Austin, Texas | Context only | [6] |
| Median household income and bachelor's-degree attainment | median household income usd: 90,430; bachelors degree or higher percent: 60.7mixed | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates; 2020 Decennial Census where identified | Austin, Texas | Context only | [6] |
| Housing units added in Travis County from July 2024 to July 2025 | units added: 16,197; percent change: 2.4housing units and percent | Population and housing-unit estimates for July 1, 2024 to July 1, 2025 | Travis County, Texas | Context only | [7] |
| Covered establishments, employment, and average weekly wages in Q4 2025 | establishments: 76,604; employment: 1,316,516; average weekly wage usd: 1,878mixed | Employment through June 2026; QCEW establishments, employment, and wages for Q4 2025 | Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, Texas | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Selected metropolitan sector employment in June 2026 | professional and business services jobs: 293,100; government jobs: 212,300; private education and health services jobs: 171,600; construction and mining logging jobs: 99,700jobs | Employment through June 2026; QCEW establishments, employment, and wages for Q4 2025 | Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, Texas | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Metropolitan and national unemployment rates in June 2026 | austin metro percent: 4.1; united states percent: 4.4percent | Employment through June 2026; QCEW establishments, employment, and wages for Q4 2025 | Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, Texas and United States | Context only | [8] |
| University of Texas at Austin enrollment, faculty, and research scale | fall 2025 enrollment: 55,000; fall 2025 faculty: 4,693; fy2025 research expenditures usd: 1,370,000,000mixed | Fall 2025 enrollment and faculty; fiscal year 2025 research | University of Texas at Austin | Supports modeled relationship | [10] |
| City vendor and solicitation access requires use of formal procurement systems | vendor registration available: yes; solicitation search available: yes; nigp commodity codes used: yes; small business participation program: yesprocess features | Current procurement process accessed August 2026 | City of Austin | Supports modeled relationship | [11] |
| Austin spans distinct western and eastern ecological and soil regions | western region: Balcones Canyonlands and Edwards Plateau; eastern region: Northern Blackland Prairienamed regions | Current ecological-geography description accessed August 2026 | Austin, Texas | Used in scoring | [13] [2] |
| Houston Black soil has high shrink-swell behavior and deep seasonal cracking | clay content range percent: 40, 60; dry crack width range inches: 0.5, 4; shrink swell potential: highmixed | Current official soil-series description accessed August 2026 | Houston Black soil series in Blackland Prairie areas | Conditional relationship | [12] [2] |
| Austin office vacancy and asking rent in Q2 2026 | cbre vacancy percent: 23.4; cushman vacancy percent: 26.9; cbre asking rent usd psf year: 50.51; cushman asking rent usd psf year: 49.27percent and usd per square foot per year | Second quarter 2026 | Austin office market | Conditional relationship | [14] [15] |
| Office vacancy varies sharply across Austin submarkets | cbd vacancy percent: 31; central vacancy percent: 11.2; northeast vacancy percent: 49.8; east vacancy percent: 45; southwest vacancy percent: 17.1; cbd class a asking rent usd psf year: 69.27percent and usd per square foot per year | Second quarter 2026 | Austin office submarkets | Used in scoring | [15] [2] |
| Austin industrial vacancy remained elevated in Q2 2026 | cbre vacancy percent: 19.4; cushman vacancy percent: 22.3; cbre asking rent usd psf year: 13.78; cushman asking rent usd psf year: 11.78; cbre yoy rent change percent: -2.8percent and usd per square foot per year | Second quarter 2026 | Austin industrial market | Context only | [16] [17] [2] |
| Austin metropolitan retail vacancy and asking rent in Q1 2026 | direct vacancy percent: 3.3; average net asking rent usd psf year: 27.21; quarterly net absorption sqft: 52,984mixed | First quarter 2026 | Austin metropolitan retail market | Used in scoring | [18] |
| Retail vacancy and rent vary materially by Austin-area submarket | lowest named city submarket vacancy percent: 1.4; lowest named city submarket: Southeast; highest named city submarket vacancy percent: 11.6; highest named city submarket: Northeast; cbd vacancy percent: 1.6; cbd net asking rent usd psf year: 35percent and usd per square foot per year | First quarter 2026 | Austin-area retail submarkets | Used in scoring | [18] |
| Current Austin Water impact fees for lots platted after October 1, 2023 | water fee per service unit usd: 4,800; wastewater fee per service unit usd: 2,900; combined fee per service unit usd: 7,700usd per service unit | Current impact-fee schedule accessed August 2, 2026; FY 2025-2026 rates effective November 1, 2025 | Austin Water impact-fee boundary | Context only | [19] [3] |
| I-35 Capital Express North construction creates active frontage-road and interchange disruption | construction start: 2023-03; anticipated completion: 2029-early; frontage road one lane in some areas: yes; increased frontage road activity through: 2,026; project limits: SH 45 North to US 290 Eastproject status | Construction status through May 2026 | I-35 Capital Express North project limits | Conditional relationship | [20] [3] |
| Commercial ECAD benchmarking and reporting threshold | minimum building size sqft: 10,000; annual reporting deadline: June 1; requires austin energy service: yes; requires city limits location: yesrule thresholds | Current ordinance guidance accessed August 2026 | Commercial buildings in Austin city limits served by Austin Energy | Supports modeled relationship | [21] |
| Freestanding-sign limits in Austin scenic roadway sign districts | maximum freestanding signs per lot: 1; maximum sign area sqft: 64; maximum sign height ft: 12rule thresholds | Current code accessed August 2026 | Austin scenic roadway sign districts | Conditional relationship | [22] [3] |
| Airport CCLUA development review evaluates aviation-compatible site conditions | review topics: height hazards, glare, wildlife attractants, exterior lightingreview topics | Current development-review framework described in September 2023 presentation | Austin-Bergstrom CCLUA and airport overlay zones | Context only | [23] [3] |
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 that apply without an unresolved site, territory, customer, or project gate.
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 73.81 after target-market demand +3.5 pts, referral ecosystem +0.5 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 local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Franchise-to-city operating-fit modelInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2The Utility Delta: A Structural Audit of Ten U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Austin spans distinct western and eastern ecological and soil regions, Houston Black soil has high shrink-swell behavior and deep seasonal cracking, Office vacancy varies sharply across Austin submarkets, and Austin industrial vacancy remained elevated in Q2 2026
- 3Structural Constraints and Hidden Costs: A Forensic Municipal AuditInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Current Austin Water impact fees for lots platted after October 1, 2023, I-35 Capital Express North construction creates active frontage-road and interchange disruption, Freestanding-sign limits in Austin scenic roadway sign districts, and Airport CCLUA development review evaluates aviation-compatible site conditions
- 4Franchise data - 2 - riverside through charlotteInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 5QuickFacts: Austin city, Texas
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 and Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025
- 6Austin city, Texas Census Bureau Profile
Used for: Estimated households in 2024, Estimated total housing units in 2024, and Median household income and bachelor's-degree attainment
- 7Austin Population Milestone: One Million and Counting
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 and Housing units added in Travis County from July 2024 to July 2025
- 8Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX, Metropolitan Area Data Tables
Used for: Covered establishments, employment, and average weekly wages in Q4 2025, Selected metropolitan sector employment in June 2026, and Metropolitan and national unemployment rates in June 2026
- 9
- 10Facts & Figures
Used for: University of Texas at Austin enrollment, faculty, and research scale
- 11Procurement and Small Business Procurement Program
Used for: City vendor and solicitation access requires use of formal procurement systems
- 12Official Soil Series Description: Houston Black Series
Used for: Houston Black soil has high shrink-swell behavior and deep seasonal cracking
- 13Natural Resources and Nature-Based Programs
Used for: Austin spans distinct western and eastern ecological and soil regions
- 14Austin Office Figures - Q2 2026
Used for: Austin office vacancy and asking rent in Q2 2026
- 15Austin Office MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Austin office vacancy and asking rent in Q2 2026 and Office vacancy varies sharply across Austin submarkets
- 16Austin Industrial Figures - Q2 2026
Used for: Austin industrial vacancy remained elevated in Q2 2026
- 17Austin Industrial MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Austin industrial vacancy remained elevated in Q2 2026
- 18Austin Retail Market Q1 2026
Used for: Austin metropolitan retail vacancy and asking rent in Q1 2026 and Retail vacancy and rent vary materially by Austin-area submarket
- 19Rates and Fees
Used for: Current Austin Water impact fees for lots platted after October 1, 2023
- 20I-35 Capital Express North Project
Used for: I-35 Capital Express North construction creates active frontage-road and interchange disruption
- 21ECAD for Commercial Buildings
Used for: Commercial ECAD benchmarking and reporting threshold
- 22Austin Land Development Code Chapter 25-10: Sign Regulations
Used for: Freestanding-sign limits in Austin scenic roadway sign districts
- 23Controlled Compatible Land Use Area and Airport Overlay Zones
Used for: Airport CCLUA development review evaluates aviation-compatible site conditions
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.