Local operating-model alignment analysis

Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Durham, North Carolina

We compared 14 franchise concepts for Durham, North Carolina. Household service demand was a leading positive mechanism. Management and technical labor pressure was a leading operating constraint.

What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
Analysis by Thomas Jepsen, MSc Model: 0.9.0
View the ranking See the local evidence
14Concepts evaluated
24Sources used
14Primary sources
20Local 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

Highest category average (limited comparison)Restoration

69.9 average across 2 concepts

Largest positive factorTarget-market demand

1.3 points average among 13 affected concepts

Largest negative factorLabor and staffing friction

0.5 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts

Most assumption-sensitive rankRainbow International Restoration

Tested rank range spans 8 positions

Executive conclusion

What the ranking means for Durham, North Carolina

City Wide, Jan-Pro International, and HomeSmiles 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 0.9 points on average. Management and technical labor pressure was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.5 points on average. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.

How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.

Best franchise opportunities assessed

Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed

“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.

Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
RankFranchiseAlignment and tierLargest advantageLargest constraintEvidence confidence
1City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730
72.8Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment
+2.6 ptsTarget-market demand -0.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction Moderate evidence confidence
2Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500
72.2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment
+2.1 ptsTarget-market demand -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction Moderate evidence confidence
3HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800
72.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+2.3 ptsTarget-market demand -0.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction Moderate evidence confidence
4ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513
71.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+1.3 ptsTarget-market demand -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction Moderate evidence confidence
5Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290
71.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+1.5 ptsTarget-market demand -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction Moderate evidence confidence
6ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500
70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+1.1 ptsTarget-market demand -0.7 ptsReal estate and site feasibility Moderate evidence confidence
7FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285
70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+1.7 ptsTarget-market demand -0.7 ptsReal estate and site feasibility Moderate evidence confidence
8Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675
70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+1.2 ptsTarget-market demand -0.5 ptsReal estate and site feasibility Moderate evidence confidence
9Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+0.9 ptsTarget-market demand -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction Moderate evidence confidence
10Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+0.7 ptsTarget-market demand -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction Moderate evidence confidence

View all 14 score calculations

Conditions that changed the analysis

What mattered most in Durham, North Carolina

01

Recent city population and county housing growth support household-service demand

This relationship affected 8 concepts and added 0.9 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Durham County housing units and 2025 building permits: housing units 2025: 164,222; building permits 2025: 4,772; county population growth 2020 base to 2025 percent: 6.9 mixed count and percent. [5] [4]

02

Above-average management and computer/technical employment concentration raises competition for overlapping roles

This relationship affected 14 concepts and reduced 0.5 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Research Triangle Park company and employment scale with Durham County land share: employees more than: 55,000; companies more than: 385; park acres: 7,000; approximate land share in durham county percent: 75 mixed count area and percent. [10] [11] [8]

03

recurring-commercial-service

This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was target-market demand, while the main constraint was labor and staffing friction. [8] [6] [5] [11] [9] [10] [1] [12] [13]

Evidence behind the city mechanisms

County business scale and the RTP employment cluster support local B2B account demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Recent city population and county housing growth support household-service demand1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
Service-oriented small-bay industrial space remains tighter than broad flex/life-science availability1 modeled effect
Service-base space scarcityReal estate and site feasibility
Above-average management and computer/technical employment concentration raises competition for overlapping roles1 modeled effect
Management and technical labor pressureLabor and staffing friction
Active waterline and street work creates temporary route, curb, and loading friction on named Durham corridors1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking

Compare all assessed concepts

Local impact by franchise concept

14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.

#1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.8

City Wide

Facility management · B2B facility management and vendor coordination

Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730

Increase +2.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Local business demand Evidence+1.4 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: rank stays #1
  • Healthcare institutional service demand Evidence+1.3 pts
+2.6 pts
Referral ecosystem
  • Professional and institutional relationship density Evidence+0.7 pts
+0.7 pts
Labor and staffing friction
  • Management and technical labor pressure Evidence-0.6 pts
-0.6 pts
Net local movement+2.78 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+2.6
Property replacement-cycle demandNot applicable to this operating model
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.6
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibilityNot applicable to this operating model
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystem+0.7
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score72.78
Published local-market alignment72.8

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
Strong
Geographic applicability
Limited
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Target-market demand +2.6 pts
Tested rank range
#1–#2
#2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.2

Jan-Pro International

Commercial cleaning · recurring commercial route service

Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500

Increase +2.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Local business demand Evidence+1.2 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #2 → #4
  • Healthcare institutional service demand Evidence+0.9 pts
+2.1 pts
Referral ecosystem
  • Professional and institutional relationship density Evidence+0.2 pts
+0.2 pts
Labor and staffing friction
  • Management and technical labor pressure Evidence-0.1 pts
-0.1 pts
Net local movement+2.20 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+2.1
Property replacement-cycle demandNot applicable to this operating model
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.1
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibilityNot applicable to this operating model
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystem+0.2
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score72.20
Published local-market alignment72.2

Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.

Evidence confidence

City Modifier Evidence
Adequate
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Limited
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Limited
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Target-market demand +2.1 pts
Tested rank range
#2–#3
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment72.0

HomeSmiles

Property maintenance services · Home-based mobile property-maintenance franchise using equipped service vans and technician crews to deliver bundled…

Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800

Increase +2.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Household service demand Evidence+1.1 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #3 → #4
  • Local business demand Evidence+0.7 pts
  • Healthcare institutional service demand Evidence+0.5 pts
+2.3 pts
Referral ecosystem
  • Professional and institutional relationship density Evidence+0.6 pts
+0.6 pts
Labor and staffing friction
  • Management and technical labor pressure Evidence-0.6 pts
-0.6 pts
Real estate and site feasibility
  • Service-base space scarcity Evidence-0.3 pts
-0.3 pts
Net local movement+1.97 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+2.3
Property replacement-cycle demandNot applicable to this operating model
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.6
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibility-0.3
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystem+0.6
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score71.97
Published local-market alignment72.0

Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.

Evidence confidence

City Modifier Evidence
Adequate
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Adequate
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Limited
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Target-market demand +2.3 pts
Tested rank range
#2–#7
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.5

ActionCOACH

Business coaching · home-based B2B advisory

Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513

Increase +1.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Local business demand Evidence+1.1 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #4 → #8
  • Healthcare institutional service demand Evidence+0.2 pts
+1.3 pts
Referral ecosystem
  • Professional and institutional relationship density Evidence+0.6 pts
+0.6 pts
Labor and staffing friction
  • Management and technical labor pressure Evidence-0.4 pts
-0.4 pts
Net local movement+1.51 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+1.3
Property replacement-cycle demandNot applicable to this operating model
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.4
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibilityNot applicable to this operating model
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystem+0.6
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score71.51
Published local-market alignment71.5

Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.

Evidence confidence

City Modifier Evidence
Adequate
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Limited
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Limited
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Target-market demand +1.3 pts
Tested rank range
#1–#5
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.2

Pillar To Post Home Inspectors

Home inspection · mobile property inspection service

Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290

Increase +1.5 pts Target-market 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Household service demand Evidence+1.3 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #5 → #7
  • Local business demand Evidence+0.1 pts
+1.4 pts
Labor and staffing friction
  • Management and technical labor pressure Evidence-0.3 pts
-0.3 pts
Property replacement-cycle demand
  • Replacement and repair demand Evidence+0.1 pts
+0.1 pts
Net local movement+1.24 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 sources
YouTube video 1YouTube video 2
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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+1.4
Property replacement-cycle demand+0.1
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.3
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibilityNot applicable to this operating model
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score71.24
Published local-market alignment71.2

Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.

Evidence confidence

City Modifier Evidence
Adequate
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Limited
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Limited
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Target-market demand +1.5 pts
Tested rank range
#4–#7
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7

ZOOM DRAIN

Drain and sewer service · emergency skilled-trade route service

Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500

Increase +1.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.7 pts Real estate and site feasibility

Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive

Why it ranks here

Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.

Local factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Household service demand Evidence+0.8 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #6 → #8
  • Local business demand Evidence+0.3 pts
+1.1 pts
Real estate and site feasibility
  • Service-base space scarcity Evidence-0.7 pts
-0.7 pts
Labor and staffing friction
  • Management and technical labor pressure Evidence-0.4 pts
-0.4 pts
Referral ecosystem
  • Professional and institutional relationship density Evidence+0.4 pts
+0.4 pts
Property replacement-cycle demand
  • Replacement and repair demand Evidence+0.3 pts
+0.3 pts
Net local movement+0.71 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+1.1
Property replacement-cycle demand+0.3
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.4
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibility-0.7
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystem+0.4
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score70.71
Published local-market alignment70.7

Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.

Evidence confidence

City Modifier Evidence
Adequate
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Limited
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Limited
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Target-market demand +1.1 pts
Tested rank range
#5–#10
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7

FASTSIGNS

Signs and graphics · B2B production and installation center

Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285

Increase +1.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.7 pts Real estate and site feasibility

Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive

Why it ranks here

Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.

Local factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Local business demand Evidence+1.3 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #7 → #14
  • Healthcare institutional service demand Evidence+0.5 pts
+1.7 pts
Real estate and site feasibility
  • Service-base space scarcity Evidence-0.7 pts
-0.7 pts
Labor and staffing friction
  • Management and technical labor pressure Evidence-0.7 pts
-0.7 pts
Referral ecosystem
  • Professional and institutional relationship density Evidence+0.3 pts
+0.3 pts
Net local movement+0.66 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 sources
YouTube video 1YouTube video 2YouTube video 3
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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+1.7
Property replacement-cycle demandNot applicable to this operating model
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.7
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibility-0.7
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystem+0.3
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score70.66
Published local-market alignment70.7

Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.

Evidence confidence

City Modifier Evidence
Adequate
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Limited
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Limited
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Target-market demand +1.7 pts
Tested rank range
#6–#13
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6

Mr. Rooter

Plumbing · scheduled and emergency skilled-trade service

Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675

Increase +1.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Real estate and site feasibility

Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive

Why it ranks here

Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.

Local factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Household service demand Evidence+1.0 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #8 → #11
  • Local business demand Evidence+0.2 pts
+1.2 pts
Real estate and site feasibility
  • Service-base space scarcity Evidence-0.5 pts
-0.5 pts
Labor and staffing friction
  • Management and technical labor pressure Evidence-0.4 pts
-0.4 pts
Property replacement-cycle demand
  • Replacement and repair demand Evidence+0.3 pts
+0.3 pts
Net local movement+0.61 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+1.2
Property replacement-cycle demand+0.3
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.4
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibility-0.5
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score70.61
Published local-market alignment70.6

Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.

Evidence confidence

City Modifier Evidence
Adequate
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Limited
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Limited
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Target-market demand +1.2 pts
Tested rank range
#6–#11
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5

Mister Sparky Electric

Electrical · skilled-trade home service

Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Household service demand Evidence+0.9 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #9 → #12
+0.9 pts
Labor and staffing friction
  • Management and technical labor pressure Evidence-0.4 pts
-0.4 pts
Real estate and site feasibility
  • Service-base space scarcity Evidence-0.3 pts
-0.3 pts
Property replacement-cycle demand
  • Replacement and repair demand Evidence+0.3 pts
+0.3 pts
Transportation, routing, and parkingRoute and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmedNot scored
Net local movement+0.46 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+0.9
Property replacement-cycle demand+0.3
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.4
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibility-0.3
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score70.46
Published local-market alignment70.5

Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.

Evidence confidence

City Modifier Evidence
Adequate
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Limited
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Limited
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Target-market demand +0.9 pts
Tested rank range
#7–#10
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4

Workout Anytime

Fitness · fixed-location membership fitness

Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550

Increase +0.7 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Household service demand Evidence+0.7 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: rank stays #10
+0.7 pts
Labor and staffing friction
  • Management and technical labor pressure Evidence-0.3 pts
-0.3 pts
Net local movement+0.37 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+0.7
Property replacement-cycle demandNot applicable to this operating model
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.3
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibilityNot applicable to this operating model
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score70.37
Published local-market alignment70.4

Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.

Evidence confidence

City Modifier Evidence
Adequate
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Limited
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Limited
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Target-market demand +0.7 pts
Tested rank range
#8–#13
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9

Rainbow International Restoration

Restoration · emergency property restoration

Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900

Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.7 pts Real estate and site feasibility

Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive

Why it ranks here

Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.

Local factorModeled driversImpact
Real estate and site feasibility
  • Service-base space scarcity Evidence-0.7 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #11 → #10
-0.7 pts
Referral ecosystem
  • Professional and institutional relationship density Evidence+0.5 pts
+0.5 pts
Labor and staffing friction
  • Management and technical labor pressure Evidence-0.3 pts
-0.3 pts
Property replacement-cycle demand
  • Replacement and repair demand Evidence+0.2 pts
+0.2 pts
Target-market demand
  • Healthcare institutional service demand Evidence+0.2 pts
+0.2 pts
Transportation, routing, and parkingRoute and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmedNot scored
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 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+0.2
Property replacement-cycle demand+0.2
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.3
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibility-0.7
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystem+0.5
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score69.94
Published local-market alignment69.9

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
Strong
Geographic applicability
Limited
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Real estate and site feasibility -0.7 pts
Tested rank range
#5–#13
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9

Aire Serv

HVAC installation, repair, and maintenance · Manager-led mobile HVAC installation, repair, maintenance, and emergency service business using skilled technicians…

Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708

Increase +1.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.0 pts Labor and staffing friction

Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive

Why it ranks here

Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.

Local factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Household service demand Evidence+1.0 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #12 → #14
  • Local business demand Evidence+0.2 pts
+1.2 pts
Labor and staffing friction
  • Management and technical labor pressure Evidence-1.0 pts
-1.0 pts
Real estate and site feasibility
  • Service-base space scarcity Evidence-0.7 pts
-0.7 pts
Property replacement-cycle demand
  • Replacement and repair demand Evidence+0.3 pts
+0.3 pts
Transportation, routing, and parkingRoute and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmedNot scored
Net local movement-0.13 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 source
YouTube video 1
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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+1.2
Property replacement-cycle demand+0.3
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-1.0
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibility-0.7
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score69.87
Published local-market alignment69.9

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
Strong
Geographic applicability
Limited
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Target-market demand +1.2 pts
Tested rank range
#9–#14
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8

Tiger Adjusters

Public insurance adjusting · Home-based, referral-led public insurance adjusting business combining local property inspections with…

Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500

Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.7 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Labor and staffing friction
  • Management and technical labor pressure Evidence-0.7 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #13 → #12
-0.7 pts
Target-market demand+0.5 pts
Net local movement-0.18 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 source
YouTube video 1
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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+0.5
Property replacement-cycle demandNot applicable to this operating model
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.7
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibilityNot applicable to this operating model
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score69.82
Published local-market alignment69.8

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
Adequate
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Limited
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Labor and staffing friction -0.7 pts
Tested rank range
#11–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8

PuroClean

Restoration · emergency property restoration

Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145

Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.7 pts Real estate and site feasibility

Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive

Why it ranks here

Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.

Local factorModeled driversImpact
Real estate and site feasibility
  • Service-base space scarcity Evidence-0.7 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #14 → #12
-0.7 pts
Referral ecosystem
  • Professional and institutional relationship density Evidence+0.5 pts
+0.5 pts
Labor and staffing friction
  • Management and technical labor pressure Evidence-0.3 pts
-0.3 pts
Property replacement-cycle demand
  • Replacement and repair demand Evidence+0.2 pts
+0.2 pts
Transportation, routing, and parkingRoute and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmedNot scored
Net local movement-0.24 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demandNot applicable to this operating model
Property replacement-cycle demand+0.2
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.3
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibility-0.7
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystem+0.5
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score69.76
Published local-market alignment69.8

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
Strong
Geographic applicability
Limited
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Real estate and site feasibility -0.7 pts
Tested rank range
#6–#14

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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+2.6
Property replacement-cycle demandNot applicable to this operating model
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.6
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibilityNot applicable to this operating model
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystem+0.7
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score72.78
Published local-market alignment72.8

Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.

Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.

Factor impact

Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?

We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.

Observed model effectPositive local support

Target-market demand

We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.

Why concepts react differently

We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #7 to #13, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.

Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected+1.3 pts
Average across all concepts+1.2 pts
Concepts changing rank12

What we observed

  • Research Triangle Park Company And Employment Scale With Durham County Land Shareemployees more than: 55,000; companies more than: 385; park acres: 7,000; approximate land share in durham county percent: 75 mixed count area and percent
  • Population Change From April 2020 Estimate Base To July 20257.6 percent
  • Durham County Housing Units And 2025 Building Permitshousing units 2025: 164,222; building permits 2025: 4,772; county population growth 2020 base to 2025 percent: 6.9 mixed count and percent

Concepts helped most

City WideFacility management
+2.6 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+2.3 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+2.1 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+1.7 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+1.5 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
  • Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
  • Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
  • Sales and customer acquisitionNo 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 City WideStable · tested #1–#2
#2 Jan-Pro InternationalStable · tested #2–#3
#3 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #2–#7
#4 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #1–#5
#5 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsModerately sensitive · tested #4–#7
#6 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #5–#10
#7 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #6–#13
#8 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #6–#11
#9 Mister Sparky ElectricModerately sensitive · tested #7–#10
#10 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13
#11 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #5–#13
#12 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #9–#14
#13 Tiger AdjustersModerately sensitive · tested #11–#14
#14 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #6–#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.

Factor impact among the highest-rated franchise conceptsDiverging dot plot showing nonzero factor score contributions for the top 14 concepts. Zero-point concept-factor pairs are omitted, and factors with no nonzero contributions are excluded.+3.0+1.50.0-1.5-3.0
Target-market demand
#1 City Wide · Target-market demand · +2.6 pts1#2 Jan-Pro International · Target-market demand · +2.1 pts2#3 HomeSmiles · Target-market demand · +2.3 pts3#4 ActionCOACH · Target-market demand · +1.3 pts4#5 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors · Target-market demand · +1.5 pts5#6 ZOOM DRAIN · Target-market demand · +1.1 pts6#7 FASTSIGNS · Target-market demand · +1.7 pts7#8 Mr. Rooter · Target-market demand · +1.2 pts8#9 Mister Sparky Electric · Target-market demand · +0.9 pts9#10 Workout Anytime · Target-market demand · +0.7 pts10#11 Rainbow International Restoration · Target-market demand · +0.2 pts11#12 Aire Serv · Target-market demand · +1.2 pts12#13 Tiger Adjusters · Target-market demand · +0.5 pts13
Property replacement-cycle demand
#5 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors · Property replacement-cycle demand · +0.1 pts5#6 ZOOM DRAIN · Property replacement-cycle demand · +0.3 pts6#8 Mr. Rooter · Property replacement-cycle demand · +0.3 pts8#9 Mister Sparky Electric · Property replacement-cycle demand · +0.3 pts9#11 Rainbow International Restoration · Property replacement-cycle demand · +0.2 pts11#12 Aire Serv · Property replacement-cycle demand · +0.3 pts12#14 PuroClean · Property replacement-cycle demand · +0.2 pts14
Labor and staffing friction
#1 City Wide · Labor and staffing friction · -0.6 pts1#2 Jan-Pro International · Labor and staffing friction · -0.1 pts2#3 HomeSmiles · Labor and staffing friction · -0.6 pts3#4 ActionCOACH · Labor and staffing friction · -0.4 pts4#5 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors · Labor and staffing friction · -0.3 pts5#6 ZOOM DRAIN · Labor and staffing friction · -0.4 pts6#7 FASTSIGNS · Labor and staffing friction · -0.7 pts7#8 Mr. Rooter · Labor and staffing friction · -0.4 pts8#9 Mister Sparky Electric · Labor and staffing friction · -0.4 pts9#10 Workout Anytime · Labor and staffing friction · -0.3 pts10#11 Rainbow International Restoration · Labor and staffing friction · -0.3 pts11#12 Aire Serv · Labor and staffing friction · -1.0 pts12#13 Tiger Adjusters · Labor and staffing friction · -0.7 pts13#14 PuroClean · Labor and staffing friction · -0.3 pts14
Real estate and site feasibility
#3 HomeSmiles · Real estate and site feasibility · -0.3 pts3#6 ZOOM DRAIN · Real estate and site feasibility · -0.7 pts6#7 FASTSIGNS · Real estate and site feasibility · -0.7 pts7#8 Mr. Rooter · Real estate and site feasibility · -0.5 pts8#9 Mister Sparky Electric · Real estate and site feasibility · -0.3 pts9#11 Rainbow International Restoration · Real estate and site feasibility · -0.7 pts11#12 Aire Serv · Real estate and site feasibility · -0.7 pts12#14 PuroClean · Real estate and site feasibility · -0.7 pts14
Referral ecosystem
#1 City Wide · Referral ecosystem · +0.7 pts1#2 Jan-Pro International · Referral ecosystem · +0.2 pts2#3 HomeSmiles · Referral ecosystem · +0.6 pts3#4 ActionCOACH · Referral ecosystem · +0.6 pts4#6 ZOOM DRAIN · Referral ecosystem · +0.4 pts6#7 FASTSIGNS · Referral ecosystem · +0.3 pts7#11 Rainbow International Restoration · Referral ecosystem · +0.5 pts11#14 PuroClean · Referral ecosystem · +0.5 pts14
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [5] [6] [10] [11] [9] [8] [14] [13] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [7] [5] [1]Competitive environment: [6] [5] [10] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [8] [10] [11] [9] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [18] [19] [20] [21] [17] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [12] [13] [14] [17] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [22] [23] [24] [6] [5] [10]Referral ecosystem: [10] [11] [9] [22] [24] [5]Territory quality: [13] [14] [4] [5] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [15] [16] [17] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
ConceptTarget-market demandProperty replacement-cycle demandLabor and staffing frictionReal estate and site feasibilityReferral ecosystem
#1 City Wide+2.6 pts—-0.6 pts—+0.7 pts
#2 Jan-Pro International+2.1 pts—-0.1 pts—+0.2 pts
#3 HomeSmiles+2.3 pts—-0.6 pts-0.3 pts+0.6 pts
#4 ActionCOACH+1.3 pts—-0.4 pts—+0.6 pts
#5 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors+1.5 pts+0.1 pts-0.3 pts——
#6 ZOOM DRAIN+1.1 pts+0.3 pts-0.4 pts-0.7 pts+0.4 pts
#7 FASTSIGNS+1.7 pts—-0.7 pts-0.7 pts+0.3 pts
#8 Mr. Rooter+1.2 pts+0.3 pts-0.4 pts-0.5 pts—
#9 Mister Sparky Electric+0.9 pts+0.3 pts-0.4 pts-0.3 pts—
#10 Workout Anytime+0.7 pts—-0.3 pts——
#11 Rainbow International Restoration+0.2 pts+0.2 pts-0.3 pts-0.7 pts+0.5 pts
#12 Aire Serv+1.2 pts+0.3 pts-1.0 pts-0.7 pts—
#13 Tiger Adjusters+0.5 pts—-0.7 pts——
#14 PuroClean—+0.2 pts-0.3 pts-0.7 pts+0.5 pts

Interpretation

How to interpret the result

City Wide, Jan-Pro International, HomeSmiles 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 HomeSmiles, ActionCOACH, ZOOM DRAIN; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.

Category comparisons

Best franchise categories we assessed in Durham, 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

Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Durham, North Carolina

69.9

2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.8 to 69.9. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 69.9. Referral ecosystem added 0.5 points on average among the affected concepts. Real estate and site feasibility reduced the exposed concepts by 0.7 points on average.

Interpret cautiously: A 0.2-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
69.9
Rainbow International Restoration69.9
PuroClean69.8

Metric registry

The 20 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
MetricRaw valuePeriodGeographyRole in analysisSource
Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025305,561peopleJuly 1, 2025 population estimate and April 1, 2020 estimate baseDurham, North CarolinaContext only [4]
Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 20257.6percentJuly 1, 2025 population estimate and April 1, 2020 estimate baseDurham, North CarolinaUsed in scoring [4]
Durham County housing units and 2025 building permitshousing units 2025: 164,222; building permits 2025: 4,772; county population growth 2020 base to 2025 percent: 6.9mixed count and percent2025 population, housing-unit and building-permit estimates; 2023 business countsDurham County, North CarolinaUsed in scoring [5]
Durham County employer establishment and employment baseemployer establishments: 8,282; employment: 229,497; annual payroll thousand dollars: 21,385,998mixed business metrics2025 population, housing-unit and building-permit estimates; 2023 business countsDurham County, North CarolinaUsed in scoring [5] [6]
Average residential construction year and oldest-neighborhood patternselected county average year built: 1,975; oldest neighborhoods average period: 1920s-1930syear and period2016Durham County, North Carolina census block groupsUsed in scoring [7]
Management and technical occupational concentration and wages in the Durham-Chapel Hill MSAall occupations mean hourly durham: 38.32; all occupations mean hourly us: 33.54; management share durham percent: 8.2; management share us percent: 7.2; management mean hourly durham: 77.11; management mean hourly us: 69.84; computer math share durham percent: 7.3; computer math share us percent: 3.4; additional values omittedpercent and usd per hourMay 2025Durham-Chapel Hill, NC MSAUsed in scoring [8]
Frontline and trade occupational wages compared with national averagesfood service durham: 16.81; food service us: 17.86; building grounds durham: 18.99; building grounds us: 19.66; office admin durham: 24.32; office admin us: 24.79; construction extraction durham: 27.5; construction extraction us: 31.42; additional values omittedusd per hourMay 2025Durham-Chapel Hill, NC MSAContext only [8]
Healthcare practitioners and technical employment concentrationemployment: 36,330; durham share percent: 10.6; us share percent: 6.3; location quotient: 1.67; mean hourly wage durham: 48.17; mean hourly wage us: 52.26mixed employment and wage metricsMay 2025Durham-Chapel Hill, NC MSAUsed in scoring [8]
Duke employment and Durham campus building footprintcampus employees: 9,323; schools of medicine and nursing employees: 11,804; duke hospital employees: 11,776; duke regional hospital employees: 2,270; durham campus buildings total: 245; durham academic research buildings: 118; durham medical center buildings: 66employees and buildingsEmployees July 2025; student and facilities data current for 2025 materialsDuke University and Durham campus facilitiesUsed in scoring [9]
Research Triangle Park company and employment scale with Durham County land shareemployees more than: 55,000; companies more than: 385; park acres: 7,000; approximate land share in durham county percent: 75mixed count area and percentCurrent park profile accessed August 2026Research Triangle Park, multi-county; approximately three-fourths of park land in Durham CountyUsed in scoring [10] [11]
Triangle small-bay industrial tightness relative to broad flex availabilitybroad flex vacancy range percent: 7.5, 8.5; small bay industrial vacancy approx percent: 5; outdoor storage for products and service vehicles: premium and zoning constrainedpercent and market conditionCalendar year 2025 and 2026 outlookRaleigh-Durham greater Triangle flex/industrial marketUsed in scoring [12]
Flex/life-science vacancy varies sharply across Durham submarketsrtp i40 percent: 15.57; central durham percent: 18.59; north durham percent: 47.31; south durham percent: 1.17; triangle overall percent: 14.82vacancy percentFirst quarter 2026RTP/I-40, Central Durham, North Durham, South Durham, and Triangle overallUsed in scoring [13]
Retail vacancy differs materially across Durham submarketscentral durham percent: 18.42; north durham percent: 3.61; south durham percent: 3.65; rtp i40 percent: 2.43; triangle overall percent: 4.94vacancy percentFirst quarter 2026RTP/I-40, Central Durham, North Durham, South Durham, and Triangle overallConditional relationship [13]
Downtown office, retail, and merchant conditions at year-end 2025office occupancy percent: 84; available office space sublet share approx: one-third; downtown retail vacancy percent: 7; greater raleigh durham retail vacancy percent: 2.7; retail restaurant bar service businesses: 293; retail space delivered 2025 sqft: 60,793mixed percent count and sqftCalendar year 2025 with 2026 report contextDowntown Durham and adjacent downtown areaConditional relationship [14]
Downtown residential development and occupancycompleted developments 2025: 11; units delivered 2025 narrative value: 1,152; units completed 2025 table value: 1,154; estimated people living in and adjacent to downtown more than: 12,000; residential occupancy percent: 85mixed count and percentCalendar year 2025 with 2026 report contextDowntown Durham and adjacent downtown areaUsed in scoring [14]
Exterior sign permitting and property-specific review gatessign permit generally required for: erection, movement, enlargement, alteration; review sources: UDO Article 11, approved common signage plan if applicable, Certificate of Appropriateness if applicable; common signage plan required for: signs within a unified development complexrequirementsCurrent requirements accessed August 2026City of Durham, subject to zoning, development-plan, and property-specific applicabilityConditional relationship [15] [16]
Selected development-review and infrastructure-review fees effective July 1, 2026traffic impact analysis less than 1000 peak hour trips usd: 9,828; traffic impact analysis 1000 or more peak hour trips usd: 13,104; commercial construction drawing review no water sewer usd: 3,120; commercial construction drawing review with water or sewer base usd: 4,000; additional apartment building usd: 500; technology surcharge percent: 4; pump station construction drawing review usd: 21,000; summary utility development statement usd: 500usd and percentEffective July 1, 2026City of Durham development-services processes; fees apply only to relevant application/project typesContext only [17]
Active city construction creates named corridor road and lane closuresamerican tobacco phase 2 expected through: spring 2027; late july 2026 affected streets: Mangum Street, Roxboro Street, Pettigrew Street, Dillard Street, Blackwell Street, Bill Bell Way; other current city projects: East End Waterline Replacement Phase 1A, Main & Broad Street Waterline Replacement, NC-54 Waterline Replacementprojects and streetsCurrent projects and closures accessed August 2026Named City of Durham construction corridors; not citywideConditional relationship [18] [19]
Current downtown public parking supply and city-garage pricing exceptionspublic parking spots more than: 6,000; city parking garages: 5; city surface lots: 3; first hour free garages: Church Street, Morgan-Rigsbee; first hour free weekday hours: 8:00-19:00; rate after first hour usd per hour: 2.25; city garages free evenings and weekends except special events: yes; special event parking usd: 7spaces facilities hours and usdParking rules current as of July 1, 2026Downtown Durham public parkingContext only [20] [21]
Formal vendor onboarding is required for City of Durham and Duke procurementcity requirements: Vendor Self Service application, completed signed W-9 for active vendor status; duke requirements: PaymentWorks registration for new vendors/payees, approved vendor number required for Buy@Duke carts, SAP requisitions, and most AP Check Requestsprocess requirementsCurrent vendor-registration process accessed August 2026City of Durham procurement and Duke University procurementUsed in scoring [22] [23] [24]

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

01

Measure the city

Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.

02

Profile each operating model

Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.

03

Apply scoreable effects

Score only effects that apply without an unresolved site, territory, customer, or project gate.

04

Preserve conditional effects

Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.

05

Test rank sensitivity

Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.

06

Generate public output

Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.

How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score

Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 72.78 after target-market demand +2.6 pts, referral ecosystem +0.7 pts, and labor and staffing friction -0.6 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 0.9.0 · Compiler 0.15.1-franchise-image-filter · Report generated August 19, 2026 (site timezone)

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

  1. 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.

  1. 1
    I 102(5).docx — supplied multi-city operating research docketInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
    Publisher
    Supplied research material
    Published
    February 24, 2026
    Data period
    Research and cited sources assembled through February 24, 2026
    Scope
    Durham, North Carolina section within a multi-city research docket
    Locator
    Durham, North Carolina section, pages 11-12
    Source tier
    Tier 5 · supplied bespoke research
    Accessed
    August 12, 2026
  2. 2
    Forensic Audit of Structural Constraints and Latent Jurisdictional RisksInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
    Publisher
    Supplied research material
    Published
    February 19, 2026
    Data period
    Research and cited sources assembled through February 19, 2026
    Scope
    Durham, North Carolina section within a multi-city research docket
    Locator
    Durham, North Carolina section, page 12
    Source tier
    Tier 5 · supplied bespoke research
    Accessed
    August 12, 2026
  3. 3
    Franchise data - remake - aug(5).csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
    Publisher
    Supplied research material
    Data period
    Supplied neighborhood-level research snapshot; date not stated in file
    Scope
    Six Durham neighborhood records within a multi-city CSV
    Locator
    Durham rows: Brightleaf District, Ninth Street, Duke University Area, South Durham, Woodcroft, Hope Valley
    Source tier
    Tier 5 · supplied bespoke research
    Accessed
    August 12, 2026
  4. 4
    QuickFacts: Durham city, North Carolina

    Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 and Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025

    Publisher
    U.S. Census Bureau
    Data period
    July 1, 2025 population estimate and April 1, 2020 estimate base
    Scope
    Durham city, North Carolina
    Locator
    Population estimates table
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    August 12, 2026
  5. 5
    QuickFacts: Durham County, North Carolina

    Used for: Durham County housing units and 2025 building permits and Durham County employer establishment and employment base

    Publisher
    U.S. Census Bureau
    Data period
    2025 population, housing-unit and building-permit estimates; 2023 business counts
    Scope
    Durham County, North Carolina
    Locator
    Population, housing, building permits, and businesses tables
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    August 12, 2026
  6. 6
    County Business Patterns: 2023

    Used for: Durham County employer establishment and employment base

    Publisher
    U.S. Census Bureau
    Published
    June 26, 2025
    Data period
    Calendar year 2023
    Scope
    County, metropolitan area, and ZIP Code establishments by NAICS
    Locator
    County file and dataset methodology
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    August 12, 2026
  7. 7
    Average Year of Residential Construction (Census Blockgroups)

    Used for: Average residential construction year and oldest-neighborhood pattern

    Publisher
    Durham Neighborhood Compass / Durham County Tax Administration
    Data period
    2016
    Scope
    Durham County census block groups
    Locator
    Selected County Average and Why This is Important
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    August 12, 2026
  8. 8
    Occupational Employment and Wages in Durham-Chapel Hill, NC — May 2025

    Used for: Management and technical occupational concentration and wages in the Durham-Chapel Hill MSA, Frontline and trade occupational wages compared with national averages, and Healthcare practitioners and technical employment concentration

    Publisher
    U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
    Published
    July 8, 2026
    Data period
    May 2025
    Scope
    Durham-Chapel Hill, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area: Chatham, Durham, Orange, and Person counties
    Locator
    Table A and healthcare practitioners and technical table
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    August 12, 2026
  9. 9
    Duke Facts

    Used for: Duke employment and Durham campus building footprint

    Publisher
    Duke University
    Data period
    Employees July 2025; student and facilities data current for 2025 materials
    Scope
    Duke University and Duke University Health System; facilities table isolates Durham campus buildings
    Locator
    Employees and Facilities & Properties sections
    Source tier
    Tier 2 · recognized institutional research
    Accessed
    August 12, 2026
  10. 10
    Our Community

    Used for: Research Triangle Park company and employment scale with Durham County land share

    Publisher
    Research Triangle Foundation of North Carolina
    Data period
    Current park profile accessed August 2026
    Scope
    Research Triangle Park, a multi-county employment district
    Locator
    Community scale statement
    Source tier
    Tier 2 · recognized institutional research
    Accessed
    August 12, 2026
  11. 11
    Economic Development: References & Tools

    Used for: Research Triangle Park company and employment scale with Durham County land share

    Publisher
    Durham County Government
    Data period
    Current profile accessed August 2026
    Scope
    Durham County with Research Triangle Park geography noted
    Locator
    Research Triangle Park section
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    August 12, 2026
  12. 12
    2025 Triangle Market Overview and 2026 Forecast: FLEX

    Used for: Triangle small-bay industrial tightness relative to broad flex availability

    Publisher
    Tri Properties
    Published
    February 6, 2026
    Data period
    Calendar year 2025 and 2026 outlook
    Scope
    Raleigh, Durham, and greater Triangle flex/industrial market
    Locator
    Flex trends, small-bay industrial, outdoor storage, and 2026 outlook sections
    Source tier
    Tier 3 · credible industry
    Accessed
    August 12, 2026
  13. 13
    1Q 2026 Triangle Market Report

    Used for: Flex/life-science vacancy varies sharply across Durham submarkets and Retail vacancy differs materially across Durham submarkets

    Publisher
    Tri Properties
    Published
    May 18, 2026
    Data period
    First quarter 2026
    Scope
    Triangle market with RTP/I-40, Central Durham, North Durham, and South Durham submarkets
    Locator
    Flex/Life Science, Warehouse, Retail, and Office submarket tables
    Source tier
    Tier 3 · credible industry
    Accessed
    August 12, 2026
  14. 14
    State of Downtown Durham 2026

    Used for: Downtown office, retail, and merchant conditions at year-end 2025 and Downtown residential development and occupancy

    Publisher
    Downtown Durham, Inc.
    Published
    April 22, 2026
    Data period
    Calendar year 2025 with 2026 report context
    Scope
    Downtown Durham and adjacent downtown development area
    Locator
    2025 Overview, Office Highlights, Residential Highlights, Merchant Highlights, and occupancy tables
    Source tier
    Tier 2 · recognized institutional research
    Accessed
    August 12, 2026
  15. 15
    Sign Permits and Common Signage Plans

    Used for: Exterior sign permitting and property-specific review gates

    Publisher
    City of Durham
    Data period
    Current requirements accessed August 2026
    Scope
    City of Durham sign-permit process, subject to property-specific UDO and Certificate of Appropriateness rules
    Locator
    Sign Permits and Common Signage Plans sections
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    August 12, 2026
  16. 16
    Durham Unified Development Ordinance

    Used for: Exterior sign permitting and property-specific review gates

    Publisher
    City of Durham / Durham County
    Data period
    City amended June 15, 2026; County amended June 22, 2026
    Scope
    City of Durham and Durham County zoning jurisdictions
    Locator
    Current UDO home page and Article 11 sign standards
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    August 12, 2026
  17. 17
    Development Services Fees and Payment Menu

    Used for: Selected development-review and infrastructure-review fees effective July 1, 2026

    Publisher
    City of Durham Planning and Development Department
    Published
    July 1, 2026
    Data period
    Effective July 1, 2026
    Scope
    Durham development-services applications and related city/county review processes as specified in the schedule
    Locator
    Sections 5, 26, 27 and Appendix
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    August 12, 2026
  18. 18
    Closures

    Used for: Active city construction creates named corridor road and lane closures

    Publisher
    City of Durham
    Data period
    Current projects and closures accessed August 2026
    Scope
    Listed City of Durham construction corridors
    Locator
    Highlighted Closures
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    August 12, 2026
  19. 19
    American Tobacco District Waterline Replacement — Project Update July 24, 2026

    Used for: Active city construction creates named corridor road and lane closures

    Publisher
    City of Durham
    Published
    July 24, 2026
    Data period
    Week of July 27, 2026; Phase 2 expected through spring 2027
    Scope
    American Tobacco District and named downtown streets
    Locator
    Planned Road / Lane Closures
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    August 12, 2026
  20. 20
    Parking Downtown

    Used for: Current downtown public parking supply and city-garage pricing exceptions

    Publisher
    Downtown Durham, Inc.
    Data period
    Parking rules current as of July 1, 2026
    Scope
    Downtown Durham public and city-owned parking
    Locator
    City-Owned Parking section
    Source tier
    Tier 2 · recognized institutional research
    Accessed
    August 12, 2026
  21. 21
    City Connect: First Hour Free Parking Coming in July for 2 City Garages

    Used for: Current downtown public parking supply and city-garage pricing exceptions

    Publisher
    City of Durham
    Data period
    Program effective July 2026
    Scope
    Church Street and Morgan-Rigsbee city-owned downtown garages, with city-garage evening/weekend rules
    Locator
    First Hour Free Parking Coming in July for 2 City Garages
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    August 12, 2026
  22. 22
    Vendor Information

    Used for: Formal vendor onboarding is required for City of Durham and Duke procurement

    Publisher
    City of Durham
    Data period
    Current vendor-registration process accessed August 2026
    Scope
    City of Durham procurement vendor registration
    Locator
    Vendor Login & Registration
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    August 12, 2026
  23. 23
    Purchasing - Doing Business with the City

    Used for: Formal vendor onboarding is required for City of Durham and Duke procurement

    Publisher
    City of Durham
    Data period
    Current process accessed August 2026
    Scope
    City of Durham goods and services procurement
    Locator
    Bid & Proposal Process for Vendors and Vendor Registration
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    August 12, 2026
  24. 24
    Procurement Forms & Resources

    Used for: Formal vendor onboarding is required for City of Durham and Duke procurement

    Publisher
    Duke University Finance
    Published
    May 12, 2025
    Data period
    PaymentWorks requirement effective July 1, 2025; current in August 2026
    Scope
    Duke University procurement system
    Locator
    PaymentWorks vendor/payee registration notice
    Source tier
    Tier 2 · recognized institutional research
    Accessed
    August 12, 2026

Before contacting a franchisor

Complete the next layer of due diligence

  • Confirm the exact protected territory and neighboring units.
  • Review the current Franchise Disclosure Document.
  • Validate local staffing, licensing, insurance, and service-base assumptions.
  • Obtain location, vehicle, buildout, or working-capital estimates.
  • Speak with current and former franchisees.
  • Build a candidate-specific financial scenario.

Apply the analysis to your situation

Review how these market findings apply to your budget, role, and proposed territory.

The city score does not include your experience, capital structure, time commitment, financing, or exact territory.

Request a private franchise review
View methodologyView source registry
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.

pipelinefranchises.com

Recently updated pages: Fargo Gulfport Aurora Santa Ana Minneapolis Spokane San Diego Dayton New Orleans Knoxville

Twenty Twenty-Five

Take Free Franchise Match Quiz