70.2 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Fayetteville, North Carolina
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Fayetteville, North Carolina. University and government account demand was a leading positive mechanism. Campus-contained demand constraint was a leading operating constraint.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
21Sources used
14Primary sources
32Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
0.9 points average among 7 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 12 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Fayetteville, North Carolina
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, and FASTSIGNS produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. University and government account demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 6 exposed concepts, adding 0.6 points on average. One important asymmetry was that the same local condition supported university and government account demand while also creating campus-contained demand constraint. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 72.4Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.4 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.7 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.1 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.1 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.1 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.1 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Fayetteville, North Carolina
Fort Bragg creates a very large, access-controlled government and military institutional market adjacent to Fayetteville
The same local condition created complementary effects: university and government account demand supported exposed concepts while campus-contained demand constraint constrained others. [5]
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 property replacement-cycle demand. [5] [10] [14] [4]
Fayetteville sign permitting adds engineered-footing and historic-review gates for certain standardized sign packages
Scoring depends on the actual sign package: pole signs and ground signs over six feet trigger engineered-footing requirements, while historic-district signage adds a Certificate of Appropriateness process. [13] [12] [3]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Fort Bragg creates a very large, access-controlled government and military institutional market adjacent to Fayetteville3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 1 source
- Approximate number of troops assigned at Fort Bragg: 53,700 people approximate [5]
- Approximate number of civilians working on Fort Bragg: 14,000 workers approximate [5]
- Approximate population supported by Fort Bragg, including military families, contractors, retirees, and others: 260,000 people approximate [5]
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Campus-contained demand constraintTarget-market demand
Cape Fear Valley Health and the city healthcare sector support institutional service demand without establishing an unusual broad wage premium1 modeled effect
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
About one-fifth of Cumberland County renter and owner housing product predates 1970, creating an older-property service segment1 modeled effect
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
The July 2026 All American Gate and freeway closure redirects Fort Bragg-bound traffic to alternate gates for up to 24 months1 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, 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 alignment72.4
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +2.4 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.4 pts | |
| Net local movement | +2.35 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.35 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.4 |
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 +2.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#13
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.7
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.7 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.7 pts | |
| Net local movement | +1.71 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
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.71 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.7 |
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
- #2–#14
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.0 pts | |
| Net local movement | +1.02 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.02 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.0 |
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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#11
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 pts | |
| Net local movement | +0.82 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.82 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- 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 +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#8
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 pts | |
| Net local movement | +0.52 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.52 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#10
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.35 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.35 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
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
- 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 +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#6
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.07 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.07 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#9
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.07 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.07 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#10
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.07 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.07 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#9
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.06 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.06 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#11
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.05 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.05 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#13
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.03 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
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
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.5 pts Target-market demand
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.45 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.55 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- 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 -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.35 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.4 |
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.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 13 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #3 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.9 pts
Average across all concepts+0.4 pts
Concepts changing rank13
What we observed
- Health Care And Social Assistance Receipts/revenue In 20223,213,295,000 usd
- Healthcare Practitioners And Technical Employment, Concentration, And Mean Hourly Wage In The Fayetteville Msaemployment: 10,920; location quotient: 1.32; mean hourly wage: 51.8; united states mean hourly wage: 52.26 mixed labor metrics
- Cape Fear Valley Health Employment Scale9,500 employees approximate
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+2.4 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.7 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+1.0 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.8 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.5 pts
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.5 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 6 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. PuroClean moved from #11 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted6 of 14
Average among affected+0.1 pts
Average across all concepts+0.0 pts
Concepts changing rank6
What we observed
- Share Of Cumberland County Renter Housing Product Built Before 197019.9 percent of renter housing product
- Share Of Cumberland County Owner Housing Product Built Before 197020.9 percent of owner housing product
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.1 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.1 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.1 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.1 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.1 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Labor and staffing frictionNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Referral ecosystemNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideHighly sensitive · tested #1–#13
#2 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#14
#3 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #3–#11
#4 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #4–#8
#5 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #5–#10
#6 Rainbow International RestorationStable · tested #6–#6
#7 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #1–#9
#8 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #2–#10
#9 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #3–#9
#10 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #4–#11
#11 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #5–#13
#12 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #7–#12
#13 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13
#14 Workout AnytimeModerately 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.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [5] [14] [15] [16] [17] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [15] [4] [1]Competitive environment: [20] [4] [3] [1]Labor and staffing friction: [10] [14] [5] [2] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [7] [6] [5] [8] [9] [2] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [18] [19] [11] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [21] [5] [20] [3]Referral ecosystem: [14] [5] [21] [20] [4]Territory quality: [4] [5] [7] [17] [15]Regulatory and operating friction: [11] [12] [13] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand |
|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +2.4 pts | — |
| #2 Jan-Pro International | +1.7 pts | — |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +1.0 pts | — |
| #4 HomeSmiles | +0.8 pts | — |
| #5 ActionCOACH | +0.5 pts | — |
| #6 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.3 pts | +0.1 pts |
| #7 ZOOM DRAIN | — | +0.1 pts |
| #8 Mr. Rooter | — | +0.1 pts |
| #9 Aire Serv | — | +0.1 pts |
| #10 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.1 pts |
| #11 PuroClean | — | +0.1 pts |
| #12 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | — |
| #13 Tiger Adjusters | — | — |
| #14 Workout Anytime | -0.5 pts | — |
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 competitive environment. 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 City Wide, Jan-Pro International, FASTSIGNS; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Fayetteville, 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
70.2Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Fayetteville, North Carolina
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.1 to 70.3. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.3. Target-market demand added 0.1 points on average among the affected concepts.
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
- 70.1–70.3
- Category average
- 70.2
Rainbow International Restoration70.3
PuroClean70.1
Metric registry
The 32 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 209,120people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 Economic Census measures | Fayetteville, North Carolina | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 0.3percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 Economic Census measures | Fayetteville, North Carolina | Context only | [4] |
| Households in the 2020-2024 QuickFacts period | 82,689households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 Economic Census measures | Fayetteville, North Carolina | Context only | [4] |
| Persons age 1+ not living in the same house one year earlier, derived as the complement of the QuickFacts same-house measure | 20.7percent of persons age 1 plus | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 Economic Census measures | Fayetteville, North Carolina | Context only | [4] |
| Veterans in the 2020-2024 QuickFacts period | 24,545people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 Economic Census measures | Fayetteville, North Carolina | Context only | [4] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue in 2022 | 3,213,295,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 Economic Census measures | Fayetteville, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [4] |
| City land area in 2020 | 148.26square miles | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 Economic Census measures | Fayetteville, North Carolina | Conditional relationship | [4] |
| Approximate number of troops assigned at Fort Bragg | 53,700people approximate | Current installation population, size, and access rules accessed August 2026 | Fort Bragg, North Carolina | Supports modeled relationship | [5] |
| Approximate number of civilians working on Fort Bragg | 14,000workers approximate | Current installation population, size, and access rules accessed August 2026 | Fort Bragg, North Carolina | Supports modeled relationship | [5] |
| Approximate population supported by Fort Bragg, including military families, contractors, retirees, and others | 260,000people approximate | Current installation population, size, and access rules accessed August 2026 | Fort Bragg-supported population | Supports modeled relationship | [5] |
| Fort Bragg installation area | 284.5square miles | Current installation population, size, and access rules accessed August 2026 | Fort Bragg, North Carolina | Conditional relationship | [5] |
| Visitors without qualifying identification require a pass, and commercial-vehicle access is controlled through designated installation procedures | visitor pass required without valid dod or other qualifying id: yes; commercial vehicle access controlled: yesrule status | Current installation population, size, and access rules accessed August 2026 | Fort Bragg access-control points | Conditional relationship | [5] |
| All American Gate, Gruber Road interchange, and a section of All American Freeway closed beginning July 27, 2026 for up to two years | valid from: 2026-07-27; maximum duration months: 24; all american gate closed: yes; visitor center remains open: yesproject status | Project beginning July 27, 2026 and lasting up to two years | All American Freeway and Fort Bragg All American Gate corridor | Conditional relationship | [7] [6] |
| NCDOT contract value for the Gruber Road bridge replacement and All American Freeway permanent repairs | 15,500,000usd | Project beginning July 27, 2026 and lasting up to two years | All American Freeway / Gruber Road, Fort Bragg | Conditional relationship | [7] |
| Cape Fear Valley Health employment scale | 9,500employees approximate | System profile as of April 2026 | Cape Fear Valley Health, headquartered in Fayetteville | Used in scoring | [14] |
| Cape Fear Valley Health system includes multiple hospitals and several residency programs | employees approximate: 9,500; system type: private nonprofit academic health system; hospitals: multiple; residency programs: severalinstitutional profile | System profile as of April 2026 | Cape Fear Valley Health regional system | Used in scoring | [14] |
| Mean hourly wage for all occupations in the Fayetteville MSA compared with the United States | fayetteville msa: 27.96; united states: 33.54usd per hour | May 2025 | Fayetteville, NC MSA (Cumberland and Hoke counties) | Context only | [10] |
| Healthcare practitioners and technical employment, concentration, and mean hourly wage in the Fayetteville MSA | employment: 10,920; location quotient: 1.32; mean hourly wage: 51.8; united states mean hourly wage: 52.26mixed labor metrics | May 2025 | Fayetteville, NC MSA (Cumberland and Hoke counties) | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Selected broad occupational-group mean hourly wages in the Fayetteville MSA are below corresponding U.S. means | food preparation and serving related: fayetteville msa: 14.72, united states: 17.86; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: fayetteville msa: 16.96, united states: 19.66; office and administrative support: fayetteville msa: 21.92, united states: 24.79; transportation and material moving: fayetteville msa: 19.85, united states: 23.96usd per hour | May 2025 | Fayetteville, NC MSA (Cumberland and Hoke counties) | Context only | [10] |
| Projected Cumberland County household change from 2023 to 2028 | households 2023 estimated: 130,969; households 2028 projected: 132,799; numeric change: 1,830; percent change: 1.4households and percent | 2022 housing conditions; 2023 estimates and 2028 projections; field survey summarized in 2024 report | Cumberland County, North Carolina | Context only | [15] |
| Share of Cumberland County renter housing product built before 1970 | 19.9percent of renter housing product | 2022 housing conditions; 2023 estimates and 2028 projections; field survey summarized in 2024 report | Cumberland County, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [15] |
| Share of Cumberland County owner housing product built before 1970 | 20.9percent of owner housing product | 2022 housing conditions; 2023 estimates and 2028 projections; field survey summarized in 2024 report | Cumberland County, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [15] |
| Surveyed Cumberland County multifamily rental supply in the 2024 Carolina Core assessment | projects surveyed: 82; total units: 15,147; vacant units: 951; overall vacancy rate percent: 6.3; market rate vacancy percent: 6.9mixed multifamily metrics | 2022 housing conditions; 2023 estimates and 2028 projections; field survey summarized in 2024 report | Cumberland County, North Carolina | Context only | [15] |
| Cumberland County population components of change from April 2020 to July 2024 | population change: 7,028; percent change: 2.1; natural change: 7,991; net migration: -963people and percent | April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2024 county estimates | Cumberland County, North Carolina | Context only | [17] |
| Cumberland County was the only North Carolina county with net out-migration and natural population increase from July 2022 to July 2023 | net out migration: yes; natural population increase: yes; net domestic migration per 1000: -6.1pattern and rate | Population components of change, July 1, 2022 to July 1, 2023 | Cumberland County, North Carolina | Context only | [16] |
| PWC system development fees for selected nonresidential domestic meter sizes; fees apply to New Development and are additional to main connection and lateral tap charges | one inch: water: 1,198, sewer: 2,910, combined: 4,108; one point five inch: water: 3,272, sewer: 7,951, combined: 11,223; two inch: water: 4,356, sewer: 10,582, combined: 14,938; four inch: water: 21,793, sewer: 52,948, combined: 74,741usd | Effective and adopted February 25, 2026 | Applicable PWC water and sanitary-sewer connections | Context only | [11] [2] |
| Selected PWC nonresidential main-connection and lateral construction tap charges | water main per front foot: 27.56; water main minimum: 2,480; sewer main per front foot: 50.33; sewer main minimum: 4,530; water lateral 1 inch: 4,940; water lateral 2 inch: 5,170; sewer lateral 4 inch: 6,640; sewer lateral 6 inch: 7,490; additional values omittedusd except front foot rates | Effective and adopted February 25, 2026 | Applicable PWC nonresidential service connections | Context only | [11] [2] |
| Ground signs over 6 feet require signed and sealed engineered footing drawings with wind-load calculations; pole signs also require engineered footing drawings | ground sign height threshold feet: 6; engineered footing drawings required above threshold: yes; pole sign engineered footing drawings required: yespermit requirement | City-hosted form revised August 2022 and accessed August 2026 | Fayetteville, North Carolina | Conditional relationship | [13] [12] [3] |
| Signs in a local historic district require zoning review and a Certificate of Appropriateness before the sign permit process is completed | yesrequirement status | City-hosted form revised August 2022 and accessed August 2026 | City-designated Fayetteville historic districts | Conditional relationship | [13] [12] |
| Gateway at Military Business Park planned final flex/industrial footprint announced in June 2026 | total planned square feet: 325,550; phase one square feet: 52,500; site acres approximate: 30square feet and acres | Project plans announced June 2026 | 2755 Procurement Circle, Fayetteville, North Carolina | Context only | [18] |
| Current Gateway at Military Business Park listing showed flex availability beginning at 2,500 square feet | listed property size square feet: 325,550; listed available square feet: 88,000; minimum divisible square feet: 2,500; asking rent usd per sqft per year: 18.5; listing updated: 2026-07-20mixed listing metrics | Listing updated July 20, 2026 | 2755 Procurement Circle, Fayetteville, North Carolina | Context only | [19] |
| City procurement portal lists current competitive bid opportunities and directs prospective suppliers to vendor registration | current bid opportunities present: yes; vendor registration available: yesprocess status | Current opportunities and vendor-registration process accessed August 2026 | City of Fayetteville procurement | Context only | [21] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects that apply without an unresolved site, territory, customer, or project gate.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 72.35 after target-market demand +2.4 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Supplied structural franchise-city research docketInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Supplied municipal friction research docketInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: PWC system development fees for selected nonresidential domestic meter sizes; fees apply to New Development and are additional to main connection and lateral tap charges and Selected PWC nonresidential main-connection and lateral construction tap charges
- 3Franchise data - remake - mod(9).csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Ground signs over 6 feet require signed and sealed engineered footing drawings with wind-load calculations; pole signs also require engineered footing drawings
- 4QuickFacts: Fayetteville city, North Carolina
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households in the 2020-2024 QuickFacts period, Persons age 1+ not living in the same house one year earlier, derived as the complement of the QuickFacts same-house measure, and Veterans in the 2020-2024 QuickFacts period
- 5Access Control
Used for: Approximate number of troops assigned at Fort Bragg, Approximate number of civilians working on Fort Bragg, Approximate population supported by Fort Bragg, including military families, contractors, retirees, and others, Fort Bragg installation area, and Visitors without qualifying identification require a pass, and commercial-vehicle access is controlled through designated installation procedures
- 6Fort Bragg home page — All American Freeway Construction and Gate Closure FAQ
Used for: All American Gate, Gruber Road interchange, and a section of All American Freeway closed beginning July 27, 2026 for up to two years
- 7Major Closure and Detour on Fort Bragg to Begin July 27
Used for: All American Gate, Gruber Road interchange, and a section of All American Freeway closed beginning July 27, 2026 for up to two years and NCDOT contract value for the Gruber Road bridge replacement and All American Freeway permanent repairs
- 8
- 9
- 10Occupational Employment and Wages in Fayetteville, NC — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wage for all occupations in the Fayetteville MSA compared with the United States, Healthcare practitioners and technical employment, concentration, and mean hourly wage in the Fayetteville MSA, and Selected broad occupational-group mean hourly wages in the Fayetteville MSA are below corresponding U.S. means
- 11Service Regulations and Charges, Revision 14
Used for: PWC system development fees for selected nonresidential domestic meter sizes; fees apply to New Development and are additional to main connection and lateral tap charges and Selected PWC nonresidential main-connection and lateral construction tap charges
- 12Unified Development Ordinance
Used for: Ground signs over 6 feet require signed and sealed engineered footing drawings with wind-load calculations; pole signs also require engineered footing drawings and Signs in a local historic district require zoning review and a Certificate of Appropriateness before the sign permit process is completed
- 13Sign Permit Application Form
Used for: Ground signs over 6 feet require signed and sealed engineered footing drawings with wind-load calculations; pole signs also require engineered footing drawings and Signs in a local historic district require zoning review and a Certificate of Appropriateness before the sign permit process is completed
- 14Daniel Weatherly Named Chief Executive Officer of Cape Fear Valley Health
Used for: Cape Fear Valley Health employment scale and Cape Fear Valley Health system includes multiple hospitals and several residency programs
- 15Housing Needs Assessment — Carolina Core Region
Used for: Projected Cumberland County household change from 2023 to 2028, Share of Cumberland County renter housing product built before 1970, Share of Cumberland County owner housing product built before 1970, and Surveyed Cumberland County multifamily rental supply in the 2024 Carolina Core assessment
- 16How is North Carolina Population Change Occurring?
Used for: Cumberland County was the only North Carolina county with net out-migration and natural population increase from July 2022 to July 2023
- 17Population Growth 2020-24
Used for: Cumberland County population components of change from April 2020 to July 2024
- 18Maryland-based Obrecht Properties enters North Carolina market with acquisition of 30-acre site near Fort Bragg in Fayetteville
Used for: Gateway at Military Business Park planned final flex/industrial footprint announced in June 2026
- 19The Gateway at Military Business Park — 2755 Procurement Cir
Used for: Current Gateway at Military Business Park listing showed flex availability beginning at 2,500 square feet
- 20
- 21Bid Opportunities
Used for: City procurement portal lists current competitive bid opportunities and directs prospective suppliers to vendor registration
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.