69.7 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Garland, Texas
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Garland, Texas. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Service-base space scarcity 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
19Sources used
13Primary sources
21Local 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 10 affected concepts
0.6 points average reduction among 8 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 12 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Garland, Texas
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, and ActionCOACH produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Local business demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 10 exposed concepts, adding 0.9 points on average. Service-base space scarcity was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.6 points on average. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing local business demand moved it from #1 to #6 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 71.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.9 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 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 71.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.5 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.7 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.5 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.7 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.3 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Garland, Texas
Large manufacturing and industrial base supports local business-account demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 0.9 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: City industrial-space scale and approximate vacancy: industrial space sqft minimum: 30,000,000; vacancy rate approximate percent: 4 mixed sqft and percent. [5] [6]
Tight Garland-area flex availability raises service-base search friction without establishing a marketwide shortage
This relationship affected 8 concepts and reduced 0.6 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: City industrial-space scale and approximate vacancy: industrial space sqft minimum: 30,000,000; vacancy rate approximate percent: 4 mixed sqft and percent. [5] [11]
City planning materials reported 70 percent of Garland homes were built before 1980, while the 2026 strategic plan cites a current deferred-maintenance and underinvestment cycle.
The older housing profile supports repair, inspection, restoration, plumbing, HVAC, and electrical replacement demand, but age does not prove that original systems remain in place or that failures are synchronized. Shrink-swell soil exposure can add property stress, yet that mechanism is site-dependent and is intentionally left conditional until parcel or service-area geotechnical evidence is resolved. [7] [8] [1] [18] [19]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large manufacturing and industrial base supports local business-account demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Older housing stock and documented deferred maintenance support repair and replacement demand1 modeled effect
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Expansive-clay mechanism is plausible locally but requires parcel-level geotechnical confirmation1 modeled effect
Moisture and foundation service demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
I-635 LBJ East reconstruction remains an active but late-stage corridor disruption1 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Tight Garland-area flex availability raises service-base search friction without establishing a marketwide shortage1 modeled effect
Service-base space scarcityReal estate and site feasibility
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.9
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.9 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 |
| +1.9 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.90 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.9 |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 71.90 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.9 |
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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#6
#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 | +1.67 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 71.67 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#7
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.5
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +1.5 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 |
| +1.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.54 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.5 |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 71.54 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.5 |
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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#4
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
FASTSIGNS
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 factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.7 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.03 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| 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 | -0.7 |
| 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 | 71.03 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#14
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 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 factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.0 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.70 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| 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 | -0.3 |
| 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 | 70.70 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#11
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.2 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 |
| +0.2 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.34 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | 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 | 70.34 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#10
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.5 pts Real estate and site feasibility
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.23 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.5 |
| 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 | 70.23 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#9
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.2 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 |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.23 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | 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 | 70.23 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#13
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.7 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.12 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.7 |
| 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 | 70.12 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#11
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.3 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 factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.07 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.3 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#10
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.7 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| 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
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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.7 |
| 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 | 70.0 |
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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
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 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| 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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#14
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.7 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.7 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Moisture and foundation service demand EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.34 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.7 |
| 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 | 69.66 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.7 |
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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.7 pts Real estate and site feasibility
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.7 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Moisture and foundation service demand EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.34 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.7 |
| 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 | 69.66 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.7 |
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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.9 |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 71.90 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.9 |
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 10 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 13 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #4 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted10 of 14
Average among affected+0.9 pts
Average across all concepts+0.7 pts
Concepts changing rank13
What we observed
- City Industrial Space Scale And Approximate Vacancyindustrial space sqft minimum: 30,000,000; vacancy rate approximate percent: 4 mixed sqft and percent
- City Reported Manufacturing Company Count300 manufacturers approximate minimum
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.9 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+1.7 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.7 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+1.5 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.0 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. Mr. Rooter moved from #7 to #9, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank6
What we observed
- Owner Occupied Housing Unit Rate61.6 percent
- Share Of Garland Homes Reported As Built Before 1980 In The 2012 Residential Idea Book Presentation70 percent
- Strategic Plan Identifies A Housing Underinvestment And Deferred Maintenance CycleThe 2026 strategic plan states that the 2025 Housing Study documents below-average demand, lower household incomes, deferred maintenance, and regional-image challenges as a self-reinforcing cycle. categorical finding
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.4 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.4 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.4 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.4 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.3 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Real estate and site feasibility
We applied site and operating-base constraints only to concepts requiring comparable storefront, production, warehouse, or fleet space.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. PuroClean moved from #14 to #10, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected-0.6 pts
Average across all concepts-0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank11
What we observed
- City Industrial Space Scale And Approximate Vacancyindustrial space sqft minimum: 30,000,000; vacancy rate approximate percent: 4 mixed sqft and percent
- Northeast Dallas/garland Flex Space Vacancy And Asking Rent At Mid Year 2026flex vacancy percent: 4.8; flex asking rent usd per sqft: 12.35; overall industrial vacancy percent: 5.1 mixed percent and usd per sqft
Concepts challenged most
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-0.7 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.7 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.7 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-0.7 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.7 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
- 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–#6
#2 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#7
#3 ActionCOACHStable · tested #3–#4
#4 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #2–#14
#5 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #5–#11
#6 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #1–#10
#7 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #7–#9
#8 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #3–#13
#9 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #6–#11
#10 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #2–#10
#11 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #8–#12
#12 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #5–#14
#13 Rainbow International RestorationStable · tested #12–#13
#14 PuroCleanModerately sensitive · tested #11–#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] [6] [8] [16] [17] [1] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [7] [8] [4] [1] [18] [19]Competitive environment: [4] [5] [11] [1] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [9] [16] [5] [6] [2] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [10] [4] [3] [1]Real estate and site feasibility: [5] [11] [8] [12] [13] [14] [15] [1] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [4] [5] [8] [1]Referral ecosystem: [16] [17] [6] [5] [3]Territory quality: [12] [8] [15] [10] [19] [11] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [13] [14] [15] [12] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Real estate and site feasibility |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +1.9 pts | — | — |
| #2 Jan-Pro International | +1.7 pts | — | — |
| #3 ActionCOACH | +1.5 pts | — | — |
| #4 FASTSIGNS | +1.7 pts | — | -0.7 pts |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +1.0 pts | — | -0.3 pts |
| #6 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.1 pts | +0.2 pts | — |
| #7 Mr. Rooter | +0.3 pts | +0.4 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #8 Tiger Adjusters | +0.2 pts | — | — |
| #9 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.4 pts | +0.4 pts | -0.7 pts |
| #10 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.4 pts | -0.3 pts |
| #11 Aire Serv | +0.3 pts | +0.4 pts | -0.7 pts |
| #12 Workout Anytime | — | — | — |
| #13 Rainbow International Restoration | — | +0.3 pts | -0.7 pts |
| #14 PuroClean | — | +0.3 pts | -0.7 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, ActionCOACH led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to real estate and site feasibility. 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.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Garland, Texas
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.7Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Garland, Texas
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.7 to 69.7. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 69.7. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.3 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 0.0-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 69.7–69.7
- Category average
- 69.7
Rainbow International Restoration69.7
PuroClean69.7
Metric registry
The 21 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 | 249,625people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic sales measures | Garland, Texas | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 1.4percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic sales measures | Garland, Texas | Context only | [4] |
| Households in the 2020-2024 ACS period | 81,954households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic sales measures | Garland, Texas | Context only | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate | 61.6percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic sales measures | Garland, Texas | Used in scoring | [4] |
| City-reported manufacturing-company count | 300manufacturers approximate minimum | Current page accessed August 2026; historical and current city context | Garland, Texas | Used in scoring | [6] |
| City industrial-space scale and approximate vacancy | industrial space sqft minimum: 30,000,000; vacancy rate approximate percent: 4mixed sqft and percent | Current as posted August 19, 2026 | Garland, Texas industrial sector | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Northeast Dallas/Garland flex-space vacancy and asking rent at mid-year 2026 | flex vacancy percent: 4.8; flex asking rent usd per sqft: 12.35; overall industrial vacancy percent: 5.1mixed percent and usd per sqft | February through July 2026; underlying CoStar reports dated February 11, April 12, and July 22, 2026 | Northeast Dallas/Garland industrial submarket | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Share of Garland homes reported as built before 1980 in the 2012 Residential Idea Book presentation | 70percent | Housing-stock characterization presented October 27, 2012 | Garland, Texas housing stock as characterized in 2012 | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Strategic plan identifies a housing underinvestment and deferred-maintenance cycle | The 2026 strategic plan states that the 2025 Housing Study documents below-average demand, lower household incomes, deferred maintenance, and regional-image challenges as a self-reinforcing cycle.categorical finding | Adopted June 16, 2026; 2025 Housing Study referenced within plan | Garland, Texas | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Texas A&M research documents building and infrastructure movement from shrink-swell soils and site-dependent active-zone depth | Shrink-swell soils can produce large movements during drying and wetting; reliable site estimates depend on soil parameters and active-zone conditions that are not routinely measured.categorical engineering finding | Research project November 2017 through August 2019; includes Dallas weather and Texas active-zone evidence | Texas; Dallas included in climatic modeling | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| NRCS requires area-of-interest soil mapping and may require onsite investigation for engineering uses | Web Soil Survey is the authoritative soil survey source, but NRCS notes that onsite investigation is needed for some engineering applications.categorical guidance | Current authoritative soil survey system accessed August 2026 | Garland sites within Dallas County | Conditional relationship | [19] |
| Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington occupational wage benchmarks | all occupations mean hourly usd: 33.96; us all occupations mean hourly usd: 33.54; food preparation serving mean hourly usd: 15.74; building grounds cleaning mean hourly usd: 17.96; transportation material moving employment share percent: 10.5mixed usd per hour and percent | May 2025 | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas | Context only | [9] |
| Garland ISD total staff and role mix | total staff: 7,514; teachers: 3,332; auxiliary staff: 1,612; professional support staff: 928; educational aides: 697employees | 2023-2024 TAPR, 2024-2025 PEIMS, 2025-2026 adopted budget, and 2025 staff figures | Garland ISD serving Garland, Rowlett, and Sachse | Context only | [16] |
| I-635 LBJ East reconstruction status | start: 2019-08; expected end: late 2026; estimated cost usd: 1,700,000,000; percent complete: 96project status | August 2026 project status | I-635 from US 75 to south of I-30, including Garland on the TxDOT project map | Conditional relationship | [10] [3] |
| Mapped 100-year floodplain extent and principal creek corridors | acres approximate: 4,200; principal corridors: Duck Creek, Rowlett Creek, Spring Creek, tributariesacres and named corridors | Current floodplain and CRS information accessed August 2026 | Garland FEMA 100-year floodplains | Conditional relationship | [12] |
| Garland FEMA Community Rating System class and discount | crs class: 6; total nfip discount percent: 20; effective date: 2023-10-01classification and percent | Current floodplain and CRS information accessed August 2026 | Garland NFIP participants; property exposure remains site-specific | Context only | [12] |
| Current Garland sign permit, design, and site-specific controls | permit required for new signage: yes; new sign format: individual channel letters or channel letters mounted on a raceway; permit fee up to 50 sqft usd: 175; permit fee 50 to 100 sqft usd: 263; permit fee 101 to 300 sqft usd: 350; planned development may add special requirements: yesrequirements and usd | Current sign-permit and sign-design requirements accessed August 2026 | Garland, Texas; property PD and sign type can alter requirements | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| Water impact fees shown on the City commercial utility application for new commercial construction | 5 8 inch usd: 593; 3 4 inch usd: 890; 1 inch usd: 1,483; 1 5 inch usd: 2,965; 2 inch usd: 4,744; 3 inch usd: 10,378; 4 inch usd: 17,790; 6 inch usd: 40,028; additional values omittedusd per meter | Form revised November 2023 and posted on current City permit site | New commercial construction obtaining City of Garland water meters | Context only | [14] [2] |
| Downtown Automotive Overlay land-use credit framework for automotive uses | new automotive business requires transferable credits: yes; existing automotive expansion requires transferable credits: yes; credit transfer window after cessation days: 60; audit found program administration issues: yesregulatory requirements | Audit scope through 2022; ordinance framework established 2005 and incorporated into GDC in 2015 | Garland Downtown Automotive Overlay District | Conditional relationship | [15] [2] |
| Strategic plan concentrates redevelopment in designated Economic Focus Areas and aging commercial corridors | The City plans concentrated investment in selected commercial corridors, aging retail centers, redevelopment districts, infrastructure-enabled areas, and corridor-adjacent neighborhoods rather than uniform citywide intervention.categorical planning finding | Adopted June 16, 2026; 2025 Housing Study referenced within plan | Designated Garland Economic Focus Areas and commercial corridors | Conditional relationship | [8] |
| Nearby Methodist Richardson Medical Center serves Garland within a multi-city service area | licensed beds: 209; physicians minimum: 400; specialties: 35facility metrics | Current facility profile accessed August 2026 | Richardson facility serving Garland and multiple neighboring cities | Context only | [17] |
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 whose applicability is established at the report’s current geographic and operating scope.
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 71.90 after target-market demand +1.9 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 claims or metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is clearly distinguished from publicly accessible evidence.
- 1I 182(4).docx - Garland, Texas sectionInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Municipal Forensic Audit: Structural Constraints and Deal-Killer AnalysisInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Water impact fees shown on the City commercial utility application for new commercial construction and Downtown Automotive Overlay land-use credit framework for automotive uses
- 3Franchise data - remake - 181(3).csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: I-635 LBJ East reconstruction status
- 4QuickFacts: Garland city, Texas
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households in the 2020-2024 ACS period, and Owner-occupied housing unit rate
- 5Garland Delivers: Economic Development
Used for: City industrial-space scale and approximate vacancy
- 6Garland History
Used for: City-reported manufacturing-company count
- 7Garland Residential Idea Book presentation
Used for: Share of Garland homes reported as built before 1980 in the 2012 Residential Idea Book presentation
- 8Garland on the Rise - Strategic Plan 2026-2036
Used for: Strategic plan identifies a housing underinvestment and deferred-maintenance cycle and Strategic plan concentrates redevelopment in designated Economic Focus Areas and aging commercial corridors
- 9Occupational Employment and Wages in Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington - May 2025
Used for: Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington occupational wage benchmarks
- 10Dallas County Construction Projects as of Q3 2026
Used for: I-635 LBJ East reconstruction status
- 11Garland & NE Dallas Texas Industrial Market Update Mid-Year 2026
Used for: Northeast Dallas/Garland flex-space vacancy and asking rent at mid-year 2026
- 12Floodplain & Drainage
Used for: Mapped 100-year floodplain extent and principal creek corridors and Garland FEMA Community Rating System class and discount
- 13Signs
Used for: Current Garland sign permit, design, and site-specific controls
- 14Commercial Building Permit Application and Water Meter Release / Commercial Utility Service Application
Used for: Water impact fees shown on the City commercial utility application for new commercial construction
- 15Downtown Automotive Overlay District - Land Use Credit Program
Used for: Downtown Automotive Overlay land-use credit framework for automotive uses
- 16District Profile
Used for: Garland ISD total staff and role mix
- 17Methodist Richardson Medical Center - About
Used for: Nearby Methodist Richardson Medical Center serves Garland within a multi-city service area
- 18Geotechnical Issues Associated with Shrink-Swell Soils - Summary Findings
Used for: Texas A&M research documents building and infrastructure movement from shrink-swell soils and site-dependent active-zone depth
- 19Web Soil Survey
Used for: NRCS requires area-of-interest soil mapping and may require onsite investigation for engineering uses
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.