69.8 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Concord, North Carolina
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Concord, North Carolina. Household service demand was a leading positive mechanism. Healthcare-overlap labor competition 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
25Sources used
14Primary sources
28Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
0.4 points average among 13 affected concepts
0.2 points average reduction among 13 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 10 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Concord, North Carolina
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Aire Serv, and Mr. Rooter produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Household service demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 8 exposed concepts, adding 0.4 points on average. One important asymmetry was that the same local condition supported healthcare institutional service demand while also creating healthcare-overlap labor competition. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing healthcare institutional service demand moved it from #6 to #11 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Concord, North Carolina
Population growth combined with a large owner-occupied household base supports residential-service demand
This relationship affected 8 concepts and added 0.4 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Owner-occupied housing unit rate: 65.2 percent. [4]
Atrium Health Cabarrus supports institutional service demand and competes directly for cleaning/facility labor
The same local condition created complementary effects: healthcare institutional service demand supported exposed concepts while healthcare-overlap labor competition constrained others. [13] [4]
Concord population increased 8.8 percent from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025
Population growth expands the resident base, but it should not be interpreted as uniform midday walk-in demand. LODES-based place flows show substantially more Concord resident workers going to Charlotte than working in Concord, while the City identifies the Concord Mills/Bruton Smith area as a distinct Entertainment Corridor with peak event and holiday congestion. Trade area and daypart therefore remain necessary for fixed-location demand analysis. [4] [7] [6] [21]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Population growth combined with a large owner-occupied household base supports residential-service demand1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
Atrium Health Cabarrus supports institutional service demand and competes directly for cleaning/facility labor3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue in 2022: 1,423,285 thousand usd [4]
- Mean hourly wage for building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations: 18.48 usd per hour [13]
- Atrium Health minimum starting rate for North and South Carolina teammates effective January 12, 2025: 18.5 usd per hour [11]
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
Healthcare-overlap labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
A large share of employed Concord residents work in Charlotte rather than within Concord2 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Mean travel time to work for workers age 16 and over: 26.9 minutes [4]
- Top work destinations for employed residents of Concord: resident workers: 51,241; work in charlotte: 19,528; work in concord: 9,686; work locally percent: 18.9; median home work distance miles: 17.6 workers percent and miles [7] [6]
Midday walk-in demand constraintTarget-market demand
Residential after-hours demandTarget-market demand
Charlotte-area flex space shows limited availability and rising rents, but Concord-size-specific inventory remains unresolved1 modeled effect
Service-base space scarcityReal estate and site feasibility
Active U.S. 29 corridor construction creates route-specific disruption through 2026-20271 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Charlotte Motor Speedway creates recurring high-attendance event periods concentrated in the Entertainment Corridor2 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Concord Mills Boulevard / Bruton Smith Boulevard is designated as an Entertainment Corridor connecting Concord Mills and Charlotte Motor Speedway: peak congestion periods: rush hour, major events, holidays; regional attractions: Concord Mills, Charlotte Motor Speedway qualitative land use and access condition [21]
- 2026 Coca-Cola 600 sold out for the fifth consecutive year: sold out: yes; consecutive sellout years: 5; attendee origin states: 50; attendee origin countries: 14 event status and geographic reach [22]
Event-driven demand upsideTarget-market demand
Event-demand volatilityTarget-market demand
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.69 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 | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.69 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#5
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Service-base space scarcity EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.67 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 | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.67 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#8
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Service-base space scarcity EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.63 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 | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.63 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#4
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 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 | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.57 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#6
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.54 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 | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.54 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#6
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.54 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 | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.54 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#8
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.50 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.50 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#13
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -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
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 | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.20 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#14
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.12 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
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 | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.12 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#10
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.11 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.11 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#12
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.1 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.05 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.05 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#14
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.06 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 | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.94 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.12 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.88 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 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 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 | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
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 | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.69 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
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 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. HomeSmiles moved from #7 to #13, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.4 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Population Change From The April 1, 2020 Estimate Base To July 1, 20258.8 percent
- Estimated Households In The 2020 2024 Period38,669 households
- Owner Occupied Housing Unit Rate65.2 percent
Concepts helped most
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.8 pts
City WideFacility management
+0.7 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.7 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.5 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+0.5 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #2 to #6, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.3 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank7
What we observed
- Energy Star Age Indicators For Considering HVAC Equipment Replacementheat pump or air conditioner more than years: 10; furnace or boiler more than years: 15
- Total Housing Units In Acs 2020 2024 5 Year Estimates43,142 housing units
- Housing Age Distribution And Median Year Builtmedian year built occupied units: 2,000; built 1939 or earlier percent: 6.4; built 1940 1969 percent: 13.5; built 1970 1999 percent: 33; built 2000 or later percent: 46.9 year and percent of housing units
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.5 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.4 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.4 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.3 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.2 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. HomeSmiles moved from #7 to #5, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected-0.2 pts
Average across all concepts-0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank12
Concepts challenged most
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-0.3 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.3 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.3 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-0.3 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
-0.3 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Referral ecosystemNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #1–#5
#2 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #1–#8
#3 Mr. RooterStable · tested #3–#4
#4 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #2–#6
#5 Mister Sparky ElectricModerately sensitive · tested #4–#6
#6 City WideHighly sensitive · tested #1–#8
#7 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #3–#13
#8 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #7–#14
#9 FASTSIGNSModerately sensitive · tested #7–#10
#10 Workout AnytimeModerately sensitive · tested #9–#12
#11 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #6–#14
#12 Tiger AdjustersStable · tested #11–#12
#13 Rainbow International RestorationModerately sensitive · tested #10–#13
#14 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #9–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [5] [7] [6] [21] [22] [1] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [8] [9] [10] [1]Competitive environment: [24] [4] [3] [15]Labor and staffing friction: [11] [12] [13] [14] [2] [3]Transportation, routing, and parking: [17] [18] [4] [21] [25] [2] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [15] [16] [19] [1] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [23] [24] [4] [3]Referral ecosystem: [23] [4] [12] [3]Territory quality: [21] [20] [22] [7] [17] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [19] [20] [23] [3] [2]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.7 pts | +0.2 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #2 Aire Serv | +0.5 pts | +0.5 pts | -0.3 pts |
| #3 Mr. Rooter | +0.5 pts | +0.4 pts | -0.2 pts |
| #4 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.4 pts | +0.4 pts | -0.2 pts |
| #5 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.4 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.2 pts |
| #6 City Wide | +0.7 pts | — | -0.2 pts |
| #7 HomeSmiles | +0.8 pts | — | -0.3 pts |
| #8 Jan-Pro International | +0.5 pts | — | -0.3 pts |
| #9 FASTSIGNS | +0.3 pts | — | -0.1 pts |
| #10 Workout Anytime | +0.4 pts | — | -0.2 pts |
| #11 ActionCOACH | +0.1 pts | — | — |
| #12 Tiger Adjusters | +0.2 pts | — | -0.2 pts |
| #13 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.1 pts | +0.1 pts | -0.3 pts |
| #14 PuroClean | — | +0.1 pts | -0.3 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Aire Serv, Mr. Rooter led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to labor and staffing friction. 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 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Aire Serv, ZOOM DRAIN; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Concord, North Carolina
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.8Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Concord, North Carolina
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.8 to 69.9. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 69.9. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.1 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.3 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
- 69.8–69.9
- Category average
- 69.8
Rainbow International Restoration69.9
PuroClean69.8
Metric registry
The 28 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 | 114,598people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales/receipts | Concord, North Carolina | Supports research conclusion | [4] |
| Population change from the April 1, 2020 estimate base to July 1, 2025 | 8.8percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales/receipts | Concord, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Estimated households in the 2020-2024 period | 38,669households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales/receipts | Concord, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate | 65.2percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales/receipts | Concord, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Total housing units in ACS 2020-2024 5-year estimates | 43,142housing units | U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2020-2024 5-year estimates as presented by the publisher | Concord, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Housing age distribution and median year built | median year built occupied units: 2,000; built 1939 or earlier percent: 6.4; built 1940 1969 percent: 13.5; built 1970 1999 percent: 33; built 2000 or later percent: 46.9year and percent of housing units | U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2020-2024 5-year estimates as presented by the publisher | Concord, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [5] |
| ENERGY STAR age indicators for considering HVAC equipment replacement | heat pump or air conditioner more than years: 10; furnace or boiler more than years: 15years | Current consumer guidance accessed August 15, 2026 | United States | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue in 2022 | 1,423,285thousand usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales/receipts | Concord, North Carolina | Conditional relationship | [4] |
| Total retail sales in 2022 | 3,990,554thousand usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales/receipts | Concord, North Carolina | Context only | [4] |
| Mean travel time to work for workers age 16 and over | 26.9minutes | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales/receipts | Concord, North Carolina | Supports modeled relationship | [4] |
| Top work destinations for employed residents of Concord | resident workers: 51,241; work in charlotte: 19,528; work in concord: 9,686; work locally percent: 18.9; median home work distance miles: 17.6workers percent and miles | LODES 2023 commute flows and ACS 2024 5-year characteristics | Concord, North Carolina | Supports modeled relationship | [7] [6] |
| Atrium Health minimum starting rate for North and South Carolina teammates effective January 12, 2025 | 18.5usd per hour | Minimum starting rate effective January 12, 2025 | Atrium Health North and South Carolina workforce, including Concord | Supports modeled relationship | [11] |
| Atrium Health Cabarrus Environmental Services Technician posted pay | starting pay: 18.85; range low: 18.85; range high: 28.3usd per hour | Live job posting accessed August 15, 2026 | Atrium Health Cabarrus, Concord, North Carolina | Supports modeled relationship | [12] |
| Mean hourly wage for building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations | 18.48usd per hour | May 2025 | Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC | Supports modeled relationship | [13] |
| Mean hourly wage for transportation and material moving occupations | 22.28usd per hour | May 2025 | Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC | Context only | [13] |
| Cabarrus County not-seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate in June 2026 | cabarrus rate: 3.4; north carolina rate: 3.5; cabarrus labor force: 123,195; cabarrus unemployed: 4,188percent and people | June 2026 preliminary local-area unemployment statistics | Cabarrus County, North Carolina | Context only | [14] |
| Charlotte industrial-market flex asking rent reached a historic high amid limited availability in Q2 2026 | flex asking rent: 14.1; overall vacancy rate: 7.4; cabarrus share of ytd new leasing: 9usd per sqft percent | Q2 2026 | Charlotte industrial market; Cabarrus County leasing share | Conditional relationship | [15] |
| Charlotte industrial vacancy and asking rent in Q2 2026 with continued flex-rent growth | vacancy rate: 7.1; average asking rent: 9.13; prime beverage cabarrus lease sqft: 934,000percent usd per sqft and sqft | Q2 2026 | Charlotte industrial market with Cabarrus County transaction | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| Union Cemetery Road and U.S. 29/Rock Hill Church Road improvement project | contract value usd: 14,000,000; roadway completion target: late fall 2027; landscaping completion target: spring 2028usd and dates | Construction may begin March 2026; roadway work targeted for late fall 2027 | Union Cemetery Road at U.S | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| Active U.S. 29/601 bridge replacement over Irish Buffalo Creek | traffic shift date: 2026-08-08; traffic work completion target: fall 2026; contract value usd: 11,100,000dates and usd | Traffic-related work scheduled through fall 2026; vegetation establishment through spring 2027 | U.S | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| Current City of Concord sign permit fees | wall projecting or canopy usd: 60; ground mounted usd: 140; outdoor advertising usd: 500; change of panel usd: 40; technology fee percent: 5usd and percent | Effective September 11, 2025 unless otherwise noted | Concord, North Carolina | Conditional relationship | [19] |
| New permanent signs in the North Union Street Historic District require Historic Preservation Commission hearing and approval | yesrequirement | Certificate of Appropriateness application filed October 15, 2025 | North Union Street Historic District, Concord | Conditional relationship | [20] |
| Concord Mills Boulevard / Bruton Smith Boulevard is designated as an Entertainment Corridor connecting Concord Mills and Charlotte Motor Speedway | peak congestion periods: rush hour, major events, holidays; regional attractions: Concord Mills, Charlotte Motor Speedwayqualitative land use and access condition | Current corridor-planning page accessed August 15, 2026 | Concord Mills Boulevard / Bruton Smith Boulevard, Concord | Conditional relationship | [21] |
| 2026 Coca-Cola 600 sold out for the fifth consecutive year | sold out: yes; consecutive sellout years: 5; attendee origin states: 50; attendee origin countries: 14event status and geographic reach | 2026 Coca-Cola 600 | Charlotte Motor Speedway, Concord, North Carolina | Conditional relationship | [22] |
| Cabarrus County purchasing thresholds and normal payment terms | purchasing agent award threshold usd below: 90,000; board of commissioners review threshold usd above: 90,000; normal payment terms days: 30usd and days | Current procurement procedures accessed August 15, 2026 | Cabarrus County, North Carolina | Conditional relationship | [23] |
| County Business Patterns supports detailed NAICS data at county, metro, ZIP Code, and other listed geographies but not city-place geography | naics detail: 2 to 6 digit; supports county: yes; supports zip code: yes; supports place city: nodataset capability | Calendar year 2023 | U.S | Context only | [24] |
| Downtown Concord streetscape was described by City staff as completed by November 2025 | status: completed; reference date: 2025-11-10project status | November 2025 | Downtown Concord | Context only | [25] |
| North Carolina Piedmont weathering commonly produces a thick clay-rich layer above bedrock | typical clay rich weathered layer depth min ft: 30; typical depth max ft: 70feet | Reviewed/revised September 10, 2024 | North Carolina Piedmont and Blue Ridge provinces | Context only | [9] |
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, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors reached 70.69 after target-market demand +0.7 pts, property replacement-cycle demand +0.2 pts, and labor and staffing friction -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.
- 1I 142(5).docxInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Structural Constraints and Hidden Costs: A Forensic Interrogation of Municipal GeographiesInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - 142(4).csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4QuickFacts: Concord city, North Carolina
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 1, 2020 estimate base to July 1, 2025, Estimated households in the 2020-2024 period, Owner-occupied housing unit rate, and Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue in 2022
- 5Concord, NC Facts, Statistics and Data
Used for: Total housing units in ACS 2020-2024 5-year estimates and Housing age distribution and median year built
- 62023 LODES Data Released, OnTheMap Updated
Used for: Top work destinations for employed residents of Concord
- 7Concord, NC Population & Demographics (2023): 108,719 People
Used for: Top work destinations for employed residents of Concord
- 8When is it time to replace?
Used for: ENERGY STAR age indicators for considering HVAC equipment replacement
- 9Ground Water in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge Provinces of North Carolina
Used for: North Carolina Piedmont weathering commonly produces a thick clay-rich layer above bedrock
- 10
- 11Atrium Health Raises Minimum Wage for Teammates
Used for: Atrium Health minimum starting rate for North and South Carolina teammates effective January 12, 2025
- 12Environmental Services Technician - Cabarrus (Full Time)
Used for: Atrium Health Cabarrus Environmental Services Technician posted pay
- 13Occupational Employment and Wages in Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wage for building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations and Mean hourly wage for transportation and material moving occupations
- 14North Carolina’s June County and Area Employment Figures Released
Used for: Cabarrus County not-seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate in June 2026
- 15Charlotte Industrial MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Charlotte industrial-market flex asking rent reached a historic high amid limited availability in Q2 2026
- 16Charlotte Industrial Figures Q2 2026
Used for: Charlotte industrial vacancy and asking rent in Q2 2026 with continued flex-rent growth
- 17Improvements Coming to Cabarrus County Intersection
Used for: Union Cemetery Road and U.S. 29/Rock Hill Church Road improvement project
- 18Weekend Traffic Shift Scheduled for Cabarrus County Bridge
Used for: Active U.S. 29/601 bridge replacement over Irish Buffalo Creek
- 19Fees, Rates and Charges Schedule 2025/2026
Used for: Current City of Concord sign permit fees
- 20Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report H-34-25
Used for: New permanent signs in the North Union Street Historic District require Historic Preservation Commission hearing and approval
- 21Boulevards
Used for: Concord Mills Boulevard / Bruton Smith Boulevard is designated as an Entertainment Corridor connecting Concord Mills and Charlotte Motor Speedway
- 22Coca-Cola 600 Sold Out for Fifth Straight Year
Used for: 2026 Coca-Cola 600 sold out for the fifth consecutive year
- 23Purchasing and Contracts
Used for: Cabarrus County purchasing thresholds and normal payment terms
- 24County Business Patterns: 2023
Used for: County Business Patterns supports detailed NAICS data at county, metro, ZIP Code, and other listed geographies but not city-place geography
- 25Concord City Council Work Session Minutes — November 10, 2025
Used for: Downtown Concord streetscape was described by City staff as completed by November 2025
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.