70.2 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Greensboro, North Carolina
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Greensboro, North Carolina. Household service demand was a leading positive mechanism.
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
28Sources used
22Primary sources
28Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
0.5 points average among 13 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 9 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Greensboro, North Carolina
Aire Serv, Mr. Rooter, and Pillar To Post Home Inspectors produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Household service demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 8 exposed concepts, adding 0.7 points on average. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors was especially relationship-sensitive: removing household service demand moved it from #3 to #9 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 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 71.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 71.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 71.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 71.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsReferral ecosystem | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Greensboro, North Carolina
Recent population growth and residential permitting support expanding household-service demand
This relationship affected 8 concepts and added 0.7 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Households, 2020-2024: 123,984 households. [4]
In the City’s 2022 housing profile, 43.8% of units were built in 1979 or earlier and 75.2% were built in 1999 or earlier.
The age distribution supports a larger installed base that can generate repair, inspection and replacement work as systems age. It does not establish that original components remain in every property, and the supplied claim that Cecil soil creates unavoidable citywide foundation failure was not carried forward because the current USDA Cecil-series description classifies the series as well drained, with moderately high saturated hydraulic conductivity and low shrink-swell potential. [7] [8] [1]
scheduled-home-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 competitive environment. [4] [7] [6] [5]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Recent population growth and residential permitting support expanding household-service demand1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
Large share of pre-2000 housing supports repair and system-replacement demand1 modeled effect
Housing-system replacement demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Two large public universities create concentrated institutional-account and professional-referral potential2 local facts · 3 modeled effects · 2 sources
- UNC Greensboro total fall 2025 enrollment: 18,682 students [27]
- North Carolina A&T total enrollment for 2025-26: 15,275 students [28]
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Institutional professional relationship baseReferral ecosystem
Campus-contained demand constraintTarget-market demand
Temporary downtown lane and parking-access changes create localized route and customer-access friction1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.5
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.8 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.50 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.8 |
| 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 | 71.50 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#4
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.2
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 |
| +0.7 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.24 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| 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 | 71.24 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#5
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.2
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
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 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.23 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
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 | +1.0 |
| 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 | 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 | 71.23 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- 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
- #1–#6
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.2
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.6 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 |
| +0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.16 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 | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| 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 | 71.16 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#7
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 |
| +0.7 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.12 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| 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 | 71.12 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#6
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
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 | +0.96 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 | +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 | 70.96 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#11
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
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 |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.78 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model 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 | +0.2 |
| 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 | 70.78 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#7
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemNo 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.54 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| 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 included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.54 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#14
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
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 | +0.51 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model 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 | 70.51 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#13
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +0.4 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 |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.40 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| 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 | 70.40 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#14
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
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 |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.32 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | 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 | +0.1 |
| 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 | 70.32 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#11
#12Tier 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: 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 |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.25 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | 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 | 70.25 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
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 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.24 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model 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 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 | 70.24 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
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 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.18 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | +0.2 |
| 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 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 | 70.18 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated Aire Serv
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.8 |
| 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 | 71.50 |
| 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.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors moved from #3 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected+0.5 pts
Average across all concepts+0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Population Change From The April 2020 Estimate Base To July 20253.2 percent
- Households, 2020 2024123,984 households
- Residential Building Permits Issued In 20243,313 permits
Concepts helped most
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+1.0 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.0 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.7 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.7 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.7 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #1 to #4, 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 rank7
What we observed
- Housing Units Built In 1979 Or Earlier In The 2022 Acs Profile Used By The Citycount: 58,256; share percent: 43.8 count and percent
- Housing Units Built In 1999 Or Earlier In The 2022 Acs Profile Used By The Citycount: 100,058; share percent: 75.2 count and percent
- City Housing Analysis States That The Aging Housing Stock Is More Likely To Need Repair And Accommodations For People With Disabilitiesyes boolean
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.8 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.6 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.5 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.5 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.3 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Referral ecosystem
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 3 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. ActionCOACH moved from #8 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted3 of 14
Average among affected+0.2 pts
Average across all concepts+0.0 pts
Concepts changing rank7
Concepts helped most
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.4 pts
City WideFacility management
+0.2 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+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
- 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 Aire ServModerately sensitive · tested #1–#4
#2 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #2–#5
#3 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #1–#6
#4 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #2–#7
#5 Mister Sparky ElectricModerately sensitive · tested #4–#6
#6 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #2–#11
#7 City WideHighly sensitive · tested #3–#7
#8 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #5–#14
#9 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13
#10 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #9–#14
#11 FASTSIGNSStable · tested #10–#11
#12 Tiger AdjustersStable · tested #11–#12
#13 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #9–#13
#14 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #8–#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] [7] [27] [28] [11] [12] [1] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [7] [4] [8] [1]Competitive environment: [12] [11] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [9] [10] [11] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [4] [22] [23] [24] [1] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [13] [9] [17] [18] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [12] [11] [25] [26] [3]Referral ecosystem: [27] [28] [25] [12] [11]Territory quality: [21] [19] [20] [15] [22] [23] [13] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [17] [18] [14] [15] [16] [19] [20] [21] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 Aire Serv | +0.7 pts | +0.8 pts | — |
| #2 Mr. Rooter | +0.7 pts | +0.5 pts | — |
| #3 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +1.0 pts | +0.3 pts | — |
| #4 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.6 pts | +0.6 pts | — |
| #5 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.7 pts | +0.5 pts | — |
| #6 HomeSmiles | +1.0 pts | — | — |
| #7 City Wide | +0.5 pts | — | +0.2 pts |
| #8 ActionCOACH | +0.2 pts | — | +0.4 pts |
| #9 Workout Anytime | +0.5 pts | — | — |
| #10 Jan-Pro International | +0.4 pts | — | — |
| #11 FASTSIGNS | +0.3 pts | — | +0.1 pts |
| #12 Tiger Adjusters | +0.2 pts | — | — |
| #13 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.1 pts | +0.2 pts | — |
| #14 PuroClean | — | +0.2 pts | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
Aire Serv, Mr. Rooter, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors 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 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, ZOOM DRAIN, HomeSmiles; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Greensboro, 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 Greensboro, North Carolina
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.2 to 70.2. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.2. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.2 points on average among the affected concepts.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.1-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.2–70.2
- Category average
- 70.2
Rainbow International Restoration70.2
PuroClean70.2
Metric registry
The 28 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 308,667people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics | Greensboro, North Carolina | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 3.2percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics | Greensboro, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Households, 2020-2024 | 123,984households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics | Greensboro, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2020-2024 | 50.5percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics | Greensboro, North Carolina | Context only | [4] |
| Residential building permits issued in 2024 | 3,313permits | 2024 residential permits and Road to 10,000 launch context | Greensboro, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Total housing units in 2022 | 133,029housing units | Housing data primarily through 2022; report prepared and finalized in 2025 | Greensboro, North Carolina | Context only | [7] |
| Housing units built in 1979 or earlier in the 2022 ACS profile used by the City | count: 58,256; share percent: 43.8count and percent | Housing data primarily through 2022; report prepared and finalized in 2025 | Greensboro, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Housing units built in 1999 or earlier in the 2022 ACS profile used by the City | count: 100,058; share percent: 75.2count and percent | Housing data primarily through 2022; report prepared and finalized in 2025 | Greensboro, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [7] |
| City housing analysis states that the aging housing stock is more likely to need repair and accommodations for people with disabilities | yesboolean | Housing data primarily through 2022; report prepared and finalized in 2025 | Greensboro, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Official Cecil soil-series properties relevant to the supplied clay-risk claim | agricultural drainage class: well drained; saturated hydraulic conductivity class: moderately high; shrink swell potential: low; landscape: Piedmont uplandscategorical properties | Series revision November 2025 | Cecil series in the Southern Piedmont, including North Carolina | Context only | [8] |
| Mean hourly wages in Greensboro-High Point compared with the United States for selected major occupational groups | all occupations: greensboro high point: 28.45, united states: 33.54; food preparation and serving: greensboro high point: 15.67, united states: 17.86; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: greensboro high point: 17.42, united states: 19.66; sales and related: greensboro high point: 25.4, united states: 26.43; office and administrative support: greensboro high point: 22.74, united states: 24.79; construction and extraction: greensboro high point: 26.09, united states: 31.42; installation maintenance and repair: greensboro high point: 27.89, united states: 30.44; production: greensboro high point: 22.56, united states: 24.81; additional values omittedusd per hour | May 2025 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics | Greensboro-High Point, North Carolina Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [9] |
| Transportation and material moving share of employment versus national share | greensboro high point percent: 11.9; united states percent: 8.8; local employment: 43,400percent and jobs | May 2025 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics | Greensboro-High Point, North Carolina Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [9] |
| Unemployment rate in May 2026 | 3.8percent | Labor-force data through May 2026; payroll employment through June 2026 | Greensboro-High Point, North Carolina Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [10] |
| Covered establishments, employment and average weekly wage in Guilford County, fourth quarter 2025 | establishments: 17,854; employment december 2025: 296,689; average weekly wage usd: 1,270mixed | Fourth quarter and December 2025 | Guilford County, North Carolina | Context only | [11] |
| Employer and nonemployer establishment counts in Guilford County in 2023 | employer establishments: 14,306; employment: 265,517; nonemployer establishments: 48,980businesses and jobs | Employer and nonemployer business statistics for 2023; economic receipts for 2022 | Guilford County, North Carolina | Context only | [12] |
| Greensboro/Winston-Salem aggregate industrial market conditions in Q2 2026 | vacancy percent: 7.1; average asking rent usd per sqft: 6.63; net absorption sqft: 343,000; development pipeline sqft: 3,900,000mixed | Second quarter 2026 | Greensboro/Winston-Salem industrial market | Context only | [13] |
| UNC Greensboro total fall 2025 enrollment | 18,682students | Fall 2025 enrollment | UNC Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina | Supports modeled relationship | [27] |
| North Carolina A&T total enrollment for 2025-26 | 15,275students | 2025-26 academic-year enrollment | North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, North Carolina | Supports modeled relationship | [28] |
| System development fee for a 1-inch General Service connection | water usd: 3,811; wastewater usd: 3,242; combined usd: 7,053usd | Current codified fee schedule accessed August 2026; latest cited amendment June 17, 2025 | City of Greensboro water and wastewater utility system | Context only | [17] [18] [2] |
| System development fees for larger General Service meter sizes | 2 inch: water usd: 12,195, wastewater usd: 10,376, combined usd: 22,571; 4 inch: water usd: 38,109, wastewater usd: 32,426, combined usd: 70,535usd | Current codified fee schedule accessed August 2026; latest cited amendment June 17, 2025 | City of Greensboro water and wastewater utility system | Context only | [17] [2] |
| System development fees apply to new development connecting to the utility system and to specified changes that increase meter count or meter size | yesboolean | Current codified fee schedule accessed August 2026; latest cited amendment June 17, 2025 | City of Greensboro water and wastewater utility system | Context only | [17] [18] |
| Freestanding signs over 6 feet may not be within 100 feet of a residential zoning district on the same side of the fronting street; signs 6 feet or less generally must be monument style | over 6ft residential buffer ft: 100; six ft or less monument style required: yes; historic overlay or landmark monument exemption: yesrule | Current interactive LDO accessed August 2026 | Greensboro, North Carolina | Conditional relationship | [15] [14] [2] |
| Planning Department fee for business signs and billboards in FY 2026-27 | 165usd per sign | FY 2026-27 fee schedule effective July 1, 2026 | Greensboro, North Carolina | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| Locally zoned historic districts and Certificate of Appropriateness requirement | districts: College Hill, Dunleath, Fisher Park; coa required before exterior or property work: yescategorical | Current program guidance accessed August 2026 | College Hill, Dunleath and Fisher Park, Greensboro, North Carolina | Conditional relationship | [19] [20] |
| Greensboro uses multiple geographically specific overlay and design districts | categories: scenic corridor, pedestrian scale, historic, neighborhood conservation, downtown design, airport, visual corridor, central business; named examples: NC Highway 68 and Greensboro Urban Loop, East Market Street, Spring Garden Street, College Hill, Dunleath, Fisher Park, Westridge Road, West Friendly Avenuecategorical | Current LDO overlay references accessed August 2026 | Greensboro, North Carolina | Conditional relationship | [21] |
| Current localized downtown access changes include North Greene Street lane closures through August 31, 2026 and a Eugene Street Parking Deck entrance closure with alternate access expected through summer 2027 | north greene lane closure expected until: 2026-08-31; eugene street deck eugene entrance closed: yes; deck alternate access: Bellemeade Street; event-time access may route via Edgeworth Street; deck access change expected until: summer 2027mixed | Current and recently announced road/access changes in June-July 2026 | Downtown Greensboro, North Carolina | Conditional relationship | [22] [23] [24] |
| Mean travel time to work for workers age 16 and older, 2020-2024 | 21.7minutes | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics | Greensboro, North Carolina | Context only | [4] |
| Suppliers selling to the City of Greensboro register through GePS; bid opportunities and addenda are handled through the procurement system | supplier registration required for city sales: yes; public bid opportunities available: yes; bidder responsible for checking addenda: yescategorical | Current procurement workflow accessed August 2026 | City of Greensboro procurement | Context only | [25] [26] |
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, Aire Serv reached 71.50 after property replacement-cycle demand +0.8 pts and target-market demand +0.7 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1I 122(1).docxInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Jurisdictional Risk and Structural Friction Analysis: A Forensic Audit of Municipal Deal-KillersInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: System development fee for a 1-inch General Service connection, System development fees for larger General Service meter sizes, and Freestanding signs over 6 feet may not be within 100 feet of a residential zoning district on the same side of the fronting street; signs 6 feet or less generally must be monument style
- 3Franchise data - remake - mod(2).csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4QuickFacts: Greensboro city, North Carolina
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households, 2020-2024, Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2020-2024, and Mean travel time to work for workers age 16 and older, 2020-2024
- 5City Manager Launches Plan to Increase Greensboro’s Housing Stock
Used for: Residential building permits issued in 2024
- 6
- 7City of Greensboro Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 2025
Used for: Total housing units in 2022, Housing units built in 1979 or earlier in the 2022 ACS profile used by the City, Housing units built in 1999 or earlier in the 2022 ACS profile used by the City, and City housing analysis states that the aging housing stock is more likely to need repair and accommodations for people with disabilities
- 8Official Series Description - CECIL Series
Used for: Official Cecil soil-series properties relevant to the supplied clay-risk claim
- 9Occupational Employment and Wages in Greensboro-High Point, NC — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wages in Greensboro-High Point compared with the United States for selected major occupational groups and Transportation and material moving share of employment versus national share
- 10Greensboro-High Point, NC Economy at a Glance
Used for: Unemployment rate in May 2026
- 11County Employment and Wages in North Carolina — Fourth Quarter 2025
Used for: Covered establishments, employment and average weekly wage in Guilford County, fourth quarter 2025
- 12QuickFacts: Guilford County, North Carolina
Used for: Employer and nonemployer establishment counts in Guilford County in 2023
- 13Q2 2026 Greensboro/Winston-Salem Industrial Figures
Used for: Greensboro/Winston-Salem aggregate industrial market conditions in Q2 2026
- 14Signs
Used for: Freestanding signs over 6 feet may not be within 100 feet of a residential zoning district on the same side of the fronting street; signs 6 feet or less generally must be monument style
- 15Land Development Ordinance §30-14-7.3 Freestanding Signs
Used for: Freestanding signs over 6 feet may not be within 100 feet of a residential zoning district on the same side of the fronting street; signs 6 feet or less generally must be monument style
- 16Fees
Used for: Planning Department fee for business signs and billboards in FY 2026-27
- 17Code of Ordinances, Chapter 29, Sec. 29-53 — System development fees
Used for: System development fee for a 1-inch General Service connection, System development fees for larger General Service meter sizes, and System development fees apply to new development connecting to the utility system and to specified changes that increase meter count or meter size
- 18New Connections to Water or Sewer
Used for: System development fee for a 1-inch General Service connection and System development fees apply to new development connecting to the utility system and to specified changes that increase meter count or meter size
- 19Historic Preservation Commission
Used for: Locally zoned historic districts and Certificate of Appropriateness requirement
- 20City Adopts New Historic District Standards
Used for: Locally zoned historic districts and Certificate of Appropriateness requirement
- 21Overlay Districts, Plans & Manuals (LDO)
Used for: Greensboro uses multiple geographically specific overlay and design districts
- 22Road Closures
Used for: Current localized downtown access changes include North Greene Street lane closures through August 31, 2026 and a Eugene Street Parking Deck entrance closure with alternate access expected through summer 2027
- 23Temporary Access Changes for Eugene Street Parking Deck
Used for: Current localized downtown access changes include North Greene Street lane closures through August 31, 2026 and a Eugene Street Parking Deck entrance closure with alternate access expected through summer 2027
- 24Transportation Projects
Used for: Current localized downtown access changes include North Greene Street lane closures through August 31, 2026 and a Eugene Street Parking Deck entrance closure with alternate access expected through summer 2027
- 25Greensboro e-Procurement System (GePS)
Used for: Suppliers selling to the City of Greensboro register through GePS; bid opportunities and addenda are handled through the procurement system
- 26Procurement Services
Used for: Suppliers selling to the City of Greensboro register through GePS; bid opportunities and addenda are handled through the procurement system
- 27UNCG Achieves Highest Enrollment in Four Years
Used for: UNC Greensboro total fall 2025 enrollment
- 28Fast Facts
Used for: North Carolina A&T total enrollment for 2025-26
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.