68.8 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Dallas, Texas
We ranked 14 franchise concepts for Dallas, Texas using local demand, labor, transportation, real estate, regulation, and source-backed evidence.
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
16Primary sources
44Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
1.3 points average among 11 affected concepts
0.8 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 11 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Dallas, Texas
Our Dallas, Texas analysis favored concepts whose operating requirements matched the city’s strongest service-demand conditions without depending too heavily on inexpensive labor, easy routing, or low-cost commercial space. City Wide, Jan-Pro International, and FASTSIGNS produced the three highest modeled alignment scores in the evaluated set. Target-market demand was the strongest positive factor: it materially affected 11 concepts and added 1.3 points on average among them. Transportation, routing, and parking was the broadest negative pressure, reducing the 14 exposed concepts by 0.8 points on average. The result is not that the highest-ranked brand is universally better. It means that, under the documented city assumptions and the operating profiles available to us, its local advantages outweighed its modeled constraints more effectively. Territory boundaries, candidate capabilities, capital structure, franchise economics, current FDD disclosures, and local franchisee validation remain outside this ranking and can materially change the decision.
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 management | 73.4Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +3.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning | 72.3Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics | 72.1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | ActionCOACHBusiness coaching | 72.1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services | 71.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjusting | 69.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Workout AnytimeFitness | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.2 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection | 69.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.8 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance | 69.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.4 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Rainbow International RestorationRestoration | 68.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.2 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
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: [3] [4] [14] [15] [13] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [4] [10] [11] [19] [1]Competitive environment: [3] [12] [13] [1] [2]Labor and staffing friction: [5] [6] [2] [14]Transportation, routing, and parking: [7] [8] [9] [3] [1] [2]Real estate and site feasibility: [12] [13] [16] [17] [18] [19] [21] [10] [11] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [3] [14] [22] [23] [13]Referral ecosystem: [14] [15] [22] [23] [3]Territory quality: [3] [4] [7] [8] [12] [13] [10] [11] [17] [18]Regulatory and operating friction: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [2]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Transportation, routing, and parking |
|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +3.5 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #2 Jan-Pro International | +2.9 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +2.6 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #4 ActionCOACH | +2.1 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +1.7 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #6 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #7 Workout Anytime | — | -0.2 pts |
| #8 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.2 pts | -0.8 pts |
| #9 Aire Serv | +0.4 pts | -1.4 pts |
| #10 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.1 pts | -1.2 pts |
| #11 Mister Sparky Electric | — | -1.2 pts |
| #12 Mr. Rooter | +0.4 pts | -1.6 pts |
| #13 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.5 pts | -1.8 pts |
| #14 PuroClean | — | -1.4 pts |
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 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#6
#3 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #3–#7
#4 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #1–#4
#5 HomeSmilesStable · tested #5–#5
#6 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #4–#9
#7 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #3–#14
#8 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsModerately sensitive · tested #8–#10
#9 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #7–#11
#10 Rainbow International RestorationStable · tested #10–#11
#11 Mister Sparky ElectricModerately sensitive · tested #9–#12
#12 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13
#13 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #6–#14
#14 PuroCleanModerately sensitive · tested #12–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
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 | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 73.40 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.4 |
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.
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, FASTSIGNS led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to transportation, routing, and parking. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for Jan-Pro International, FASTSIGNS, Tiger Adjusters; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
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.
Operating environment56Positive local support
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 11 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #2 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted11 of 14
Average among affected+1.3 pts
Average across all concepts+1.0 pts
Concepts changing rank11
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+3.5 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+2.9 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+2.6 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+2.1 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.7 pts
Operating environment45Material local friction
Transportation, routing, and parking
We recalculated route-dependent models after accounting for travel corridors, parking, and the number of productive stops they require.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 9 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #13 to #6, 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 rank9
Concepts challenged most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.8 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-1.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-1.4 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-1.4 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.2 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
- 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
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Dallas, Texas
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
68.8Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Dallas, Texas
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 68.6 to 68.9. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 68.9. Target-market demand added 0.1 points on average among the affected concepts. Transportation, routing, and parking reduced the exposed concepts by 1.3 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.3-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 68.6–68.9
- Category average
- 68.8
Rainbow International Restoration68.9
PuroClean68.6
Compare all assessed concepts
Explore the complete score calculations
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see how each factor was treated and the single next check most capable of changing the result.
#1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment73.4
City Wide
Increase +3.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Stable
How we scored this concept
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 | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 73.40 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.4 |
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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +3.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
Most important next check
How many qualified facility and property-management accounts must be reachable for City Wide to support its local contract pipeline?
#2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.3
Jan-Pro International
Increase +2.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 72.34 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#6
Most important next check
What concentration of recurring commercial accounts is required for Jan-Pro International to build an efficient local book of business?
#3Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.1
FASTSIGNS
Increase +2.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | +2.6 |
| 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 | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 72.07 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.1 |
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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#7
Most important next check
Which local customer verticals are expected to generate repeat signage and graphics work for FASTSIGNS?
#4Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.1
ActionCOACH
Increase +2.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | +2.1 |
| 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 | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 72.06 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.1 |
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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#4
Most important next check
Which business-owner segments are expected to produce the most repeatable coaching demand for ActionCOACH?
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.2
HomeSmiles
Increase +1.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Stable
How we scored this concept
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 | -0.5 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 71.25 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.2 |
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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#5
Most important next check
How many qualified facility and property-management accounts must be reachable for HomeSmiles to support its local contract pipeline?
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
Tiger Adjusters
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | -0.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 69.89 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#9
Most important next check
Which professional referral channels are expected to matter most to Tiger Adjusters, and what local relationship count supports the plan?
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Workout Anytime
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.2 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | -0.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 69.84 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#14
Most important next check
Which zoning, occupancy, and permit requirements must be cleared before Workout Anytime approves a customer-facing site?
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.8 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | -0.8 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 69.39 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#10
Most important next check
What service radius and drive-time ceiling has Pillar To Post Home Inspectors validated for the proposed territory?
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.0
Aire Serv
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.4 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | -1.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 69.03 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#11
Most important next check
What daily vehicle utilization and travel-time allowance are built into Aire Serv's operating plan?
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.9
Rainbow International Restoration
Increase +0.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.2 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Stable
How we scored this concept
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 | -1.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 68.93 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.9 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#11
Most important next check
Which ZIP codes can Rainbow International Restoration serve within its target emergency-response time under normal and peak traffic conditions?
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.8
Mister Sparky Electric
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.2 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | -1.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 68.84 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.8 |
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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#12
Most important next check
What daily vehicle utilization and travel-time allowance are built into Mister Sparky Electric's operating plan?
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.8
Mr. Rooter
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.6 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | -1.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 68.78 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.8 |
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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#13
Most important next check
How many field vehicles must Mr. Rooter deploy, and where would they begin and end each service day?
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.7
ZOOM DRAIN
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.8 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | -1.8 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 68.71 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.7 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#14
Most important next check
Where must ZOOM DRAIN stage crews and vehicles to protect after-hours response times across the proposed territory?
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.6
PuroClean
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.4 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | -1.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 68.60 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.6 |
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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#14
Most important next check
What dispatch zones and maximum drive-time assumptions does PuroClean use for urgent service calls?
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Metric registry
The 44 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry exposes the raw value, period, geography, factor mapping, and source for every public metric used in the city research.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | How used | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 1,329,491people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business and receipts data | Dallas, Texas | Evidence for Target-market demand, Territory quality | [3] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 1.9percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business and receipts data | Dallas, Texas | Evidence for Target-market demand | [3] |
| Employer firms in reference year 2022 | 28,879employer firms | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business and receipts data | Dallas, Texas | Evidence for Target-market demand, Referral ecosystem, Sales and customer acquisition, Competitive environment | [3] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts in 2022 | 25,723,819,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business and receipts data | Dallas, Texas | Evidence for Target-market demand, Referral ecosystem | [3] |
| Transportation and warehousing receipts in 2022 | 13,855,858,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business and receipts data | Dallas, Texas | Evidence for Target-market demand, Labor and staffing friction, Transportation, routing, and parking | [3] |
| Total retail sales in 2022 | 31,866,501,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business and receipts data | Dallas, Texas | Evidence for Target-market demand | [3] |
| Land area in 2020 | 339.58square miles | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business and receipts data | Dallas, Texas | Evidence for Transportation, routing, and parking, Territory quality | [3] |
| Population density in 2020 | 3,841.1people per square mile | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business and receipts data | Dallas, Texas | Evidence for Target-market demand, Territory quality | [3] |
| Total housing units in the 2024 ACS 1-year profile | 599,962housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates and 2020 Census geography | Dallas, Texas | Evidence for Target-market demand, Property replacement-cycle demand, Territory quality | [4] |
| Total households in the 2024 ACS 1-year profile | 537,317households | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates and 2020 Census geography | Dallas, Texas | Evidence for Target-market demand, Territory quality | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate | 42.4percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business and receipts data | Dallas, Texas | Evidence for Target-market demand, Property replacement-cycle demand | [3] |
| Mean travel time to work for workers age 16 and over | 25.7minutes | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business and receipts data | Dallas, Texas | Evidence for Transportation, routing, and parking, Territory quality | [3] |
| The Seagoville series has high shrink-swell potential and develops dry cracks from one-half inch to more than three inches wide extending below 12 inches | shrink swell potential: high; dry crack width inches min: 0.5; dry crack width inches maximum stated more than: 3; crack depth inches minimum: 12soil series characteristics | Official soil-series description; accessed July 2026 | Seagoville series, Dallas County type location and mapped North Central Texas occurrences | Evidence for Property replacement-cycle demand, Territory quality, Real estate and site feasibility | [10] |
| The upper Seagoville soil profile is very slowly permeable | very slow upper profilepermeability class | Official soil-series description; accessed July 2026 | Seagoville series occurrences | Evidence for Property replacement-cycle demand, Real estate and site feasibility | [10] |
| The Dalco series is clayey, very slowly permeable, and has dry cracks and slickensides that identify Vertisol behavior | texture: silty clay or clay; permeability: very slow; dry cracks: yes; slickensides: yessoil series characteristics | Official soil-series description; accessed July 2026 | Dalco series, Dallas County type location and Blackland Prairie distribution | Evidence for Property replacement-cycle demand, Territory quality, Real estate and site feasibility | [11] |
| Mean hourly wage for all occupations in May 2024 | 32.89usd per hour | May 2024 | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas MSA | Evidence for Labor and staffing friction | [5] |
| Selected major occupational-group mean hourly wages compared with U.S. averages | food preparation and serving dallas: 15.69; food preparation and serving us: 17.32; building and grounds dallas: 17.48; building and grounds us: 19.01; construction and extraction dallas: 26.49; construction and extraction us: 30.73; installation maintenance repair dallas: 28.97; installation maintenance repair us: 29.63; additional values omittedusd per hour | May 2024 | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas MSA | Evidence for Labor and staffing friction | [5] |
| Transportation and material moving occupations accounted for 10.2 percent of area employment versus 8.9 percent nationally | dallas share: 10.2; us share: 8.9percent of employment | May 2024 | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas MSA | Evidence for Labor and staffing friction, Transportation, routing, and parking | [5] |
| Private-industry wages and salaries increased 1.8 percent over the 12 months ending March 2026, versus 3.4 percent nationally | dallas: 1.8; united states: 3.4percent change | 12 months ending March 2026 | Dallas-Fort Worth compensation locality | Evidence for Labor and staffing friction | [6] |
| Private-industry total compensation increased 2.3 percent over the 12 months ending March 2026, versus 3.4 percent nationally | dallas: 2.3; united states: 3.4percent change | 12 months ending March 2026 | Dallas-Fort Worth compensation locality | Evidence for Labor and staffing friction | [6] |
| Annual extra travel time per auto commuter in 2024 | 69hours per commuter per year | 2024 and 2023 traffic conditions | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington urban area | Evidence for Transportation, routing, and parking, Territory quality | [7] |
| Travel Time Index in 2024 | 1.31index | 2024 and 2023 traffic conditions | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington urban area | Evidence for Transportation, routing, and parking, Territory quality | [7] |
| Total annual travel delay in 2024 | 231,316,000person hours | 2024 and 2023 traffic conditions | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington urban area | Evidence for Transportation, routing, and parking | [7] |
| Truck congestion delay and estimated cost in 2024 | delay hours: 14,118,000; estimated cost usd: 1,048,000,000hours and usd | 2024 and 2023 traffic conditions | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington urban area | Evidence for Transportation, routing, and parking, Real estate and site feasibility | [7] |
| Major current Dallas-area highway projects include multiple corridors with construction timelines extending from 2026 through 2032 | project: I-30 Canyon: I-35E to I-45, timeline: 2026-2031, cost usd: 888,000,000, project: I-30 East: Bass Pro to FM 2642, timeline: 2021-2027, cost usd: 804,000,000, project: I-35E: I-635 to Denton County Line, timeline: 2022-2027, cost usd: 709,000,000, project: I-635 LBJ East: US 75 to I-30, timeline: 2020-2026, cost usd: 1,740,000,000, project: US 80 at I-635 interchange, timeline: 2025-2029, cost usd: 545,000,000project list | Active project timelines displayed July 2026 | Dallas and Dallas-area highway corridors | Evidence for Transportation, routing, and parking, Territory quality | [8] |
| DART Silver Line passenger service launched on October 25, 2025 | start date: 2025-10-25; route miles: 26; cities connected: 7; peak frequency minutes: 30; off peak frequency minutes: 60service status | Passenger service beginning October 25, 2025 | Seven North Texas cities and DFW International Airport | Evidence for Transportation, routing, and parking, Territory quality | [9] |
| Overall Dallas-Fort Worth industrial vacancy in Q2 2026 | 8.1percent | Second quarter 2026 | Dallas-Fort Worth industrial market | Evidence for Real estate and site feasibility, Territory quality | [12] |
| Industrial space under construction in Q2 2026 | 29.8million square feet | Second quarter 2026 | Dallas-Fort Worth industrial market | Evidence for Real estate and site feasibility, Territory quality | [12] |
| Mid-size industrial buildings of 150,000 to 499,999 square feet were the only size segment with vacancy above 10 percent, while big-box vacancy tightened | mid size range sqft: 150,000, 499,999; mid size vacancy above percent: 10; big box threshold sqft: 500,000; big box condition: tightened to lowest since 2022size segment condition | Second quarter 2026 | Dallas-Fort Worth industrial market | Evidence for Real estate and site feasibility, Territory quality | [12] |
| Average Dallas-Fort Worth industrial asking rent in Q2 2026 | 9.19usd net per square foot per year | Second quarter 2026 | Dallas-Fort Worth industrial market | Evidence for Real estate and site feasibility | [12] |
| Dallas-Fort Worth office vacancy, asking rent, and quarterly net absorption in Q2 2026 | vacancy percent: 23.9; asking rent usd per sqft per year: 34.17; net absorption million sqft: 1.1market metrics | Second quarter 2026 | Dallas-Fort Worth office market | Evidence for Real estate and site feasibility, Target-market demand, Territory quality | [13] |
| Office absorption and rent growth varied materially among named Dallas-Fort Worth submarkets | top absorption submarkets: Legacy/Frisco, Las Colinas, Uptown/Turtle Creek; strongest property level rent growth submarkets: Preston Center, Far North Dallas, Uptown/Turtle Creeknamed submarket pattern | Second quarter 2026 | Dallas-Fort Worth office submarkets | Evidence for Real estate and site feasibility, Territory quality, Target-market demand | [13] |
| UT Southwestern institutional scale | employees more than: 25,000; operating budget usd: 6,500,000,000; hospitalized patients annual more than: 143,000; emergency cases annual more than: 470,000; outpatient visits annual approximate: 5,300,000institutional metrics | Current institutional facts accessed July 2026 | UT Southwestern Medical Center and affiliated care network | Evidence for Target-market demand, Referral ecosystem, Sales and customer acquisition, Labor and staffing friction | [14] |
| UT Southwestern reports 15.5 million square feet of facilities and more than 4,000 learners trained annually | facilities square feet: 15,500,000; learners annual more than: 4,000facility and learner metrics | Current campus facts accessed July 2026 | UT Southwestern campus and regional medical centers | Evidence for Target-market demand, Referral ecosystem, Property replacement-cycle demand | [15] |
| Dallas sign permits are required when a sign exceeds 20 square feet, exceeds eight feet in height, is illuminated or electrical, occupies or overhangs a public roadway, or is in a Special Provision Sign District | effective area sqft more than: 20; height feet more than: 8; illumination or electrical: yes; public roadway location: yes; special provision sign district: yespermit triggers | Current sign-permit requirements and fees accessed July 2026 | City of Dallas | Evidence for Regulatory and operating friction, Real estate and site feasibility | [16] |
| Premise attached-sign and sign-reface permit fees are USD 296; new premise detached-sign permits are USD 577 | attached or reface usd: 296; new detached usd: 577usd | Current sign-permit requirements and fees accessed July 2026 | City of Dallas | Evidence for Regulatory and operating friction, Real estate and site feasibility | [16] |
| All signs in a Special Provision Sign District require a Certificate of Appropriateness, an additional two-to-three-month review process, at least two public meetings, and a USD 397 review fee | certificate of appropriateness required: yes; review months range: 2, 3; public meetings minimum: 2; review fee usd: 397review requirements | Current process and 2025-2026 calendar accessed July 2026 | Dallas Special Provision Sign Districts | Evidence for Regulatory and operating friction, Real estate and site feasibility, Territory quality | [17] |
| Exterior work on Dallas landmarks or structures and lots in Landmark Districts requires a Certificate of Appropriateness before work begins | certificate of appropriateness required: yes; minor review: staff; substantial review: Landmark Commissionreview requirements | Current process accessed July 2026 | City of Dallas landmarks and Landmark Districts | Evidence for Regulatory and operating friction, Real estate and site feasibility, Territory quality | [18] |
| Commercial new construction, additions, and first-time finish-outs filed on or after May 12, 2023 require a signed energy-compliance path with the building permit; remodels require a compliance certificate at project completion | new addition first finish out path form: yes; remodel completion certificate: yes; energy approval before final inspection: yesproject compliance requirements | Requirements for permit applications filed on or after May 12, 2023; accessed July 2026 | Commercial projects in the City of Dallas | Evidence for Regulatory and operating friction, Real estate and site feasibility, Property replacement-cycle demand | [19] |
| Effective June 1, 2026, plumbing and mechanical rough inspections and final inspections must be scheduled together | effective date: 2026-06-01; rough combined: yes; final combined: yesinspection scheduling rule | Inspection scheduling rule effective June 1, 2026 | Commercial, residential, and multifamily projects in Dallas | Evidence for Regulatory and operating friction | [20] |
| The optional Q-Team expedited review charges a USD 1,000 hourly plan-review fee plus size-based intake and maximum fees | hourly plan review fee usd: 1,000; intake fee usd range: 500, 1,250; maximum fee usd range: 10,000, 50,000; revision review goal business days: 10optional review fee structure | Current optional expedited-review service accessed July 2026 | Qualifying Dallas projects choosing Q-Team review | Evidence for Regulatory and operating friction, Real estate and site feasibility | [21] |
| DRIVE applies when applicable to competitively solicited City contracts over USD 100,000 and sets category-specific SBE participation goals from 30 to 38 percent | contract threshold usd more than: 100,000; sbe goal percent range: 30, 38; applicable solicitations after: 2026-03-01policy thresholds | Policy effective in 2026; applicable solicitations issued after March 1, 2026 | City of Dallas procurement | Evidence for Sales and customer acquisition, Referral ecosystem, Target-market demand | [22] |
| SBE participation credit under DRIVE requires qualifying size, DFW-area principal office, independent ownership, a commercially useful function, and recognized certification | sba size standard: yes; dfw principal office: yes; independent ownership: yes; commercially useful function: yes; recognized certification for credit: yeseligibility conditions | Policy effective in 2026; applicable solicitations issued after March 1, 2026 | City of Dallas procurement | Evidence for Sales and customer acquisition, Referral ecosystem | [22] |
| City procurement vendors register in Bonfire and select relevant commodity codes to receive and search matching opportunities | platform: Bonfire; commodity codes required for profile: yesprocess steps | Current registration workflow accessed July 2026 | City of Dallas procurement | Evidence for Sales and customer acquisition, Referral ecosystem | [23] |
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.
Why every concept begins at 70.0
70.0 is a neutral display baseline shared by every concept. Local conditions can move a score by no more than 18.0 points in either direction under the current model. It 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 4, 2026Added conditional scoring gates, factor-status transparency, rank-sensitivity testing, metric registry output, and factor-impact visualization data.
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.
- 1Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Franchise Opportunities in Tier-1 U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Structural Constraints and Hidden Municipal Costs: A Forensic Audit of Ten U.S. JurisdictionsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3QuickFacts: Dallas city, Texas
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Employer firms in reference year 2022, Health care and social assistance receipts in 2022, and Transportation and warehousing receipts in 2022
- 4Dallas city, Texas - Census Bureau Profile
Used for: Total housing units in the 2024 ACS 1-year profile and Total households in the 2024 ACS 1-year profile
- 5Occupational Employment and Wages in Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington — May 2024
Used for: Mean hourly wage for all occupations in May 2024, Selected major occupational-group mean hourly wages compared with U.S. averages, and Transportation and material moving occupations accounted for 10.2 percent of area employment versus 8.9 percent nationally
- 6Changing Compensation Costs in the Dallas Metropolitan Area — March 2026
Used for: Private-industry wages and salaries increased 1.8 percent over the 12 months ending March 2026, versus 3.4 percent nationally and Private-industry total compensation increased 2.3 percent over the 12 months ending March 2026, versus 3.4 percent nationally
- 72025 Urban Mobility Report
Used for: Annual extra travel time per auto commuter in 2024, Travel Time Index in 2024, Total annual travel delay in 2024, and Truck congestion delay and estimated cost in 2024
- 8Texas Clear Lanes: Dallas Current Projects
Used for: Major current Dallas-area highway projects include multiple corridors with construction timelines extending from 2026 through 2032
- 9Silver Line Launches Oct. 25, Connecting Seven Cities and DFW Airport with Modern, Reliable Transit
Used for: DART Silver Line passenger service launched on October 25, 2025
- 10Official Series Description: Seagoville Series
Used for: The Seagoville series has high shrink-swell potential and develops dry cracks from one-half inch to more than three inches wide extending below 12 inches and The upper Seagoville soil profile is very slowly permeable
- 11Official Series Description: Dalco Series
Used for: The Dalco series is clayey, very slowly permeable, and has dry cracks and slickensides that identify Vertisol behavior
- 12Dallas Industrial MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Overall Dallas-Fort Worth industrial vacancy in Q2 2026, Industrial space under construction in Q2 2026, Mid-size industrial buildings of 150,000 to 499,999 square feet were the only size segment with vacancy above 10 percent, while big-box vacancy tightened, and Average Dallas-Fort Worth industrial asking rent in Q2 2026
- 13Dallas Office MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Dallas-Fort Worth office vacancy, asking rent, and quarterly net absorption in Q2 2026 and Office absorption and rent growth varied materially among named Dallas-Fort Worth submarkets
- 14Facts and Figures: About Us
Used for: UT Southwestern institutional scale
- 15About Us
Used for: UT Southwestern reports 15.5 million square feet of facilities and more than 4,000 learners trained annually
- 16Permitting & Inspections: Signs
Used for: Dallas sign permits are required when a sign exceeds 20 square feet, exceeds eight feet in height, is illuminated or electrical, occupies or overhangs a public roadway, or is in a Special Provision Sign District and Premise attached-sign and sign-reface permit fees are USD 296; new premise detached-sign permits are USD 577
- 17Special Provision Sign Districts
Used for: All signs in a Special Provision Sign District require a Certificate of Appropriateness, an additional two-to-three-month review process, at least two public meetings, and a USD 397 review fee
- 18Landmark Review Process
Used for: Exterior work on Dallas landmarks or structures and lots in Landmark Districts requires a Certificate of Appropriateness before work begins
- 192021 Commercial Energy Code Process
Used for: Commercial new construction, additions, and first-time finish-outs filed on or after May 12, 2023 require a signed energy-compliance path with the building permit; remodels require a compliance certificate at project completion
- 20Permitting & Inspections: Inspections
Used for: Effective June 1, 2026, plumbing and mechanical rough inspections and final inspections must be scheduled together
- 21Q-Team Permitting & Inspections
Used for: The optional Q-Team expedited review charges a USD 1,000 hourly plan-review fee plus size-based intake and maximum fees
- 22Business Enterprise Hub: DRIVE Policy Overview
Used for: DRIVE applies when applicable to competitively solicited City contracts over USD 100,000 and sets category-specific SBE participation goals from 30 to 38 percent and SBE participation credit under DRIVE requires qualifying size, DFW-area principal office, independent ownership, a commercially useful function, and recognized certification
- 23How to Register as a Vendor
Used for: City procurement vendors register in Bonfire and select relevant commodity codes to receive and search matching opportunities
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.