69.8 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Greenville, South Carolina
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Greenville, South Carolina. 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
22Sources used
14Primary sources
32Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
1 point average among 12 affected concepts
0.8 points average reduction among 9 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 9 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Greenville, South Carolina
City Wide, ActionCOACH, and HomeSmiles 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 0.8 points on average. Service-base space scarcity was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.7 points on average. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing local business demand moved it from #1 to #2 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 | 72.4Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 71.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.3 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.8 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.4 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Greenville, South Carolina
Large city business and employment base supports local business-account demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 0.8 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Professional and business services payroll employment in June 2026: 79,200 jobs not seasonally adjusted. [6] [5]
Tight industrial fundamentals and underbuilt multi-tenant light-industrial product constrain service-base choice
This relationship affected 8 concepts and reduced 0.7 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Greenville-Spartanburg industrial availability in Q2 2026: 9.2 percent. [10]
The City-hosted 2026 Esri estimate puts Greenville's total daytime population at 155,622 versus 81,762 residents, a derived ratio of about 1.90
A daytime population substantially above the resident base supports the presence of a strong employment and business-account market, but it does not establish uniform walk-in or lunch demand. Current office evidence shows very tight Class A conditions in the Greenville CBD while broader-market and suburban availability is materially different, so daytime demand must be mapped to the actual trade area or service territory. [5] [12]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large city business and employment base supports local business-account demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Population and housing-stock growth support a growing household-service base1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
Tight industrial fundamentals and underbuilt multi-tenant light-industrial product constrain service-base choice1 modeled effect
Service-base space scarcityReal estate and site feasibility
Low retail vacancy and continuing rent pressure reduce fixed-location site flexibility1 modeled effect
Fixed-location occupancy cost pressureReal 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 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.4
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.6 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 |
| +1.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.42 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 | +1.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.8 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.42 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#1
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.9
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +1.3 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 |
| +1.3 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.94 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 | +1.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.7 |
| 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 | 71.94 |
| 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
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#3
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.8
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.5 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.76 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 | +1.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.4 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| 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 | 71.76 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.8 |
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
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#4
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.6
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.4 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 |
| +1.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.60 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 71.60 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#5
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.9 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 | +0.9 pts | |
| Net local movement | +0.92 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 | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.92 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.9 |
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
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#7
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.8 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 |
| -0.8 pts |
| Target-market demand | +0.8 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.46 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.8 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| 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 | 70.46 |
| 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
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#11
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +1.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.4 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 |
| +1.5 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.4 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.42 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.4 |
| 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 | 70.42 |
| 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
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#13
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
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
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 | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.40 |
| 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
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#14
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 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 | +0.8 pts | |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.6 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 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.6 |
| 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
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#11
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 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 |
| +0.5 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.17 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 | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.4 |
| 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 | 70.17 |
| 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
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#12
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.8 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 | +0.9 pts | |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.08 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 | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.8 |
| 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 | 70.08 |
| 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
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.6 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.8 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 |
| -0.8 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.22 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 | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.8 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| 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 | 69.78 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.6 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.8 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 |
| -0.8 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 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 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 | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.8 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| 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 | 69.77 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.1
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.3 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 |
| -1.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.87 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 | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.3 |
| 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 | 69.13 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.1 |
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
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #13–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.8 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.42 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model 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 12 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 8 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #7 to #13, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted12 of 14
Average among affected+1.0 pts
Average across all concepts+0.9 pts
Concepts changing rank8
What we observed
- Population Change From The April 2020 Estimates Base To July 20255.9 percent
- Professional And Business Services Payroll Employment In June 202679,200 jobs not seasonally adjusted
- Hud Reported Metropolitan Household Growth Averaging 1.5 Percent Annually From April 2010 To The May 2023 Current Date Of Its Analysis1.5 percent per year
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.6 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.5 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+1.5 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.4 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+1.3 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
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 9 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #7 to #4, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted9 of 14
Average among affected-0.8 pts
Average across all concepts-0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Greenville Spartanburg Industrial Vacancy In Q2 20265.3 percent
- Greenville Spartanburg Industrial Availability In Q2 20269.2 percent
- Greenville Spartanburg Retail Vacancy In Q2 20263.4 percent
Concepts challenged most
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-1.4 pts
Workout AnytimeFitness
-1.3 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.8 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.8 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-0.8 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 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #6 to #11, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.5 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank11
What we observed
- Professional And Business Services Payroll Employment In June 202679,200 jobs not seasonally adjusted
- Total Businesses In The City Hosted 2026 Economic Development Profile7,114 businesses
- Professional And Technical Services Share Of The City Hosted 2026 Labor Force Profile13.8 percent
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.8 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.7 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.6 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.6 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Property replacement-cycle demandNo material score adjustment
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Labor and staffing frictionNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideStable · tested #1–#1
#2 ActionCOACHStable · tested #2–#3
#3 HomeSmilesModerately sensitive · tested #2–#4
#4 Jan-Pro InternationalModerately sensitive · tested #2–#5
#5 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsModerately sensitive · tested #5–#7
#6 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #6–#11
#7 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #4–#13
#8 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #5–#14
#9 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #7–#11
#10 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #8–#12
#11 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #8–#12
#12 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #7–#13
#13 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13
#14 Workout AnytimeStable · tested #13–#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] [7] [6] [12] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [1] [8] [5] [7]Competitive environment: [20] [21] [5] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [6] [5] [1] [3]Transportation, routing, and parking: [17] [18] [19] [4] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [10] [9] [11] [12] [15] [16] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [20] [21] [5] [3]Referral ecosystem: [5] [6] [4] [3]Territory quality: [5] [12] [14] [17] [22] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [13] [14] [15] [16] [22] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Real estate and site feasibility | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +1.6 pts | — | +0.8 pts |
| #2 ActionCOACH | +1.3 pts | — | +0.7 pts |
| #3 HomeSmiles | +1.5 pts | -0.4 pts | +0.6 pts |
| #4 Jan-Pro International | +1.4 pts | — | +0.2 pts |
| #5 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.9 pts | — | — |
| #6 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.8 pts | -0.8 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #7 FASTSIGNS | +1.5 pts | -1.4 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #8 Tiger Adjusters | +0.4 pts | — | — |
| #9 Mr. Rooter | +0.8 pts | -0.6 pts | — |
| #10 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.5 pts | -0.4 pts | — |
| #11 Aire Serv | +0.9 pts | -0.8 pts | — |
| #12 PuroClean | — | -0.8 pts | +0.6 pts |
| #13 Rainbow International Restoration | — | -0.8 pts | +0.6 pts |
| #14 Workout Anytime | +0.4 pts | -1.3 pts | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, ActionCOACH, HomeSmiles 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 ZOOM DRAIN, FASTSIGNS, Tiger Adjusters; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Greenville, South Carolina
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.8Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Greenville, South Carolina
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.8 to 69.8. PuroClean ranked highest at 69.8. Referral ecosystem added 0.6 points on average among the affected concepts. Real estate and site feasibility reduced the exposed concepts by 0.8 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
- 69.8–69.8
- Category average
- 69.8
PuroClean69.8
Rainbow International Restoration69.8
Metric registry
The 32 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 75,310people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census measures | Greenville, South Carolina | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimates base to July 2025 | 5.9percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census measures | Greenville, South Carolina | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Households in the 2020-2024 ACS period | 35,482households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census measures | Greenville, South Carolina | Context only | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing-unit rate in 2020-2024 | 41.1percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census measures | Greenville, South Carolina | Context only | [4] |
| Census housing-unit count increased from 31,217 in 2010 to 38,014 in 2020 | housing units 2010: 31,217; housing units 2020: 38,014; derived change percent: 21.77housing units and percent | 2026 Esri, Esri-Data Axle, Esri-U.S. BLS and ACS 2020-2024; historic Census values and 2031 projections where labeled | Greenville, South Carolina | Used in scoring | [5] |
| City-hosted Esri resident population estimate for 2026 | 81,762people | 2026 Esri, Esri-Data Axle, Esri-U.S. BLS and ACS 2020-2024; historic Census values and 2031 projections where labeled | Greenville, South Carolina | Supports research conclusion | [5] |
| City-hosted 2026 total daytime population estimate | 155,622people | 2026 Esri, Esri-Data Axle, Esri-U.S. BLS and ACS 2020-2024; historic Census values and 2031 projections where labeled | Greenville, South Carolina | Conditional relationship | [5] |
| Ratio of total daytime population to resident population using the City-hosted 2026 Esri estimates | 1.903ratio | 2026 Esri, Esri-Data Axle, Esri-U.S. BLS and ACS 2020-2024; historic Census values and 2031 projections where labeled | Greenville, South Carolina | Conditional relationship | [5] |
| Total businesses in the City-hosted 2026 economic-development profile | 7,114businesses | 2026 Esri, Esri-Data Axle, Esri-U.S. BLS and ACS 2020-2024; historic Census values and 2031 projections where labeled | Greenville, South Carolina | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Total employees in the City-hosted 2026 economic-development profile | 87,076employees | 2026 Esri, Esri-Data Axle, Esri-U.S. BLS and ACS 2020-2024; historic Census values and 2031 projections where labeled | Greenville, South Carolina | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Professional and technical services share of the City-hosted 2026 labor-force profile | 13.8percent | 2026 Esri, Esri-Data Axle, Esri-U.S. BLS and ACS 2020-2024; historic Census values and 2031 projections where labeled | Greenville, South Carolina | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Health care share of the City-hosted 2026 labor-force profile | 15.3percent | 2026 Esri, Esri-Data Axle, Esri-U.S. BLS and ACS 2020-2024; historic Census values and 2031 projections where labeled | Greenville, South Carolina | Context only | [5] |
| Greenville-Anderson-Greer metropolitan unemployment rate in June 2026 | 3.9percent not seasonally adjusted | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and payroll data | Greenville-Anderson-Greer, South Carolina | Context only | [6] |
| Professional and business services payroll employment in June 2026 | 79,200jobs not seasonally adjusted | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and payroll data | Greenville-Anderson-Greer, South Carolina | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Manufacturing payroll employment in June 2026 | 61,500jobs not seasonally adjusted | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and payroll data | Greenville-Anderson-Greer, South Carolina | Context only | [6] |
| HUD reported metropolitan household growth averaging 1.5 percent annually from April 2010 to the May 2023 current date of its analysis | 1.5percent per year | Housing and labor conditions through 2024 and January 2025 | Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, South Carolina | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Greenville-Spartanburg industrial vacancy in Q2 2026 | 5.3percent | Second quarter 2026 | Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Greenville-Spartanburg industrial availability in Q2 2026 | 9.2percent | Second quarter 2026 | Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina | Used in scoring | [10] |
| NAI reported heated leasing below 50,000 square feet and described multi-tenant light industrial as historically underbuilt relative to demand | heated leasing and historically underbuiltqualitative market condition | Second quarter 2026 | Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Greenville-Spartanburg retail vacancy in Q2 2026 | 3.4percent | Second quarter 2026 | Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Average NNN retail asking rent in Q2 2026 | 15.86usd per sqft nnn | Second quarter 2026 | Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Overall Greenville-Spartanburg office vacancy in Q1 2026 | 13.66percent | First quarter 2026 | Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina | Conditional relationship | [12] |
| Greenville CBD Class A office vacancy in Q1 2026 | 2.39percent | First quarter 2026 | Greenville CBD, South Carolina | Conditional relationship | [12] |
| Average Greenville CBD Class A office asking rent exceeded 40 dollars per square foot in Q1 2026 | 40usd per sqft fsg floor value | First quarter 2026 | Greenville CBD, South Carolina | Conditional relationship | [12] |
| City sign guidance instructs applicants to plan for at least a three-week sign-permit review period | 3weeks minimum planning allowance | Current sign-permit and overlay requirements accessed August 2026 | Greenville, South Carolina | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| Signs in the Downtown Design Overlay, Historic Preservation Overlay Districts, or on National Register properties require a Certificate of Appropriateness before sign-permit approval | yesrequirement applies when site is covered | Current sign-permit and overlay requirements accessed August 2026 | Covered properties in Greenville, South Carolina | Conditional relationship | [13] [14] |
| The City lists seven Historic Preservation Overlay districts, including Hampton-Pinckney and West End | 7historic preservation overlay districts | Current Development Code framework accessed August 2026; code effective July 15, 2023 and periodically updated | Greenville, South Carolina | Conditional relationship | [14] [3] |
| FY 2026-2027 stormwater utility rate for developed commercial and industrial property per equivalent residential unit | annual rate per eru usd: 83.75; eru impervious area sqft: 2,389usd per year per eru | Fiscal year 2026-2027 fee schedule | Greenville, South Carolina | Context only | [15] |
| FY 2026-2027 monthly wastewater charge for a commercial 5/8-inch to 3/4-inch meter | 28.7usd per month | Fiscal year 2026-2027 fee schedule | City wastewater customers in Greenville, South Carolina | Context only | [16] |
| The City's August 2026 live closure calendar shows multiple event and construction-related closures, but they are location- and time-specific rather than a citywide closure condition | localized active and scheduled closuresstatus | Live August 2026 event- and construction-related closure calendar | Greenville, South Carolina | Context only | [17] |
| Augusta Street Phase Two remained described as planning near completion and expected to break ground in summer 2026; utility undergrounding Phase I was scheduled to start in late summer 2026 | expected or scheduled not confirmed active in sourceproject status | Project status accessed August 2026 | Augusta Street, Greenville, South Carolina | Context only | [18] [19] |
| Greenville County's Pelham Road Commercial Corridor Overlay sets corridor-specific site, connectivity, screening, and facade requirements for covered development | section 8 12 overlay requirementsordinance condition | Ordinance adopted in the 2023 process; current public ordinance record accessed August 2026 | Pelham Road from Blacks Drive to SC Highway 14, Greenville County, South Carolina | Context only | [22] [3] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects that apply without an unresolved site, territory, customer, or project gate.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 72.42 after target-market demand +1.6 pts and referral ecosystem +0.8 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 102(7).docx — supplied multi-city structural research docketInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Forensic Audit of Structural Constraints and Latent Jurisdictional RisksInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - aug(7).csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: The City lists seven Historic Preservation Overlay districts, including Hampton-Pinckney and West End and Greenville County's Pelham Road Commercial Corridor Overlay sets corridor-specific site, connectivity, screening, and facade requirements for covered development
- 4QuickFacts: Greenville city, South Carolina
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimates base to July 2025, Households in the 2020-2024 ACS period, and Owner-occupied housing-unit rate in 2020-2024
- 5Greenville Demographics
Used for: Census housing-unit count increased from 31,217 in 2010 to 38,014 in 2020, City-hosted Esri resident population estimate for 2026, City-hosted 2026 total daytime population estimate, Ratio of total daytime population to resident population using the City-hosted 2026 Esri estimates, and Total businesses in the City-hosted 2026 economic-development profile
- 6Greenville-Anderson-Greer, SC Economy at a Glance
Used for: Greenville-Anderson-Greer metropolitan unemployment rate in June 2026, Professional and business services payroll employment in June 2026, and Manufacturing payroll employment in June 2026
- 7Housing Market Profiles: Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, South Carolina
Used for: HUD reported metropolitan household growth averaging 1.5 percent annually from April 2010 to the May 2023 current date of its analysis
- 8
- 9Q2 2026 Market Outlooks
Used for: NAI reported heated leasing below 50,000 square feet and described multi-tenant light industrial as historically underbuilt relative to demand
- 10Greenville-Spartanburg Industrial Figures Q2 2026
Used for: Greenville-Spartanburg industrial vacancy in Q2 2026 and Greenville-Spartanburg industrial availability in Q2 2026
- 11Greenville / Spartanburg, SC Retail Market Overview Q2 2026
Used for: Greenville-Spartanburg retail vacancy in Q2 2026 and Average NNN retail asking rent in Q2 2026
- 12Greenville-Spartanburg Office Market Report Q1 2026
Used for: Overall Greenville-Spartanburg office vacancy in Q1 2026, Greenville CBD Class A office vacancy in Q1 2026, and Average Greenville CBD Class A office asking rent exceeded 40 dollars per square foot in Q1 2026
- 13Signs
Used for: City sign guidance instructs applicants to plan for at least a three-week sign-permit review period and Signs in the Downtown Design Overlay, Historic Preservation Overlay Districts, or on National Register properties require a Certificate of Appropriateness before sign-permit approval
- 14Zoning & the Development Code
Used for: Signs in the Downtown Design Overlay, Historic Preservation Overlay Districts, or on National Register properties require a Certificate of Appropriateness before sign-permit approval and The City lists seven Historic Preservation Overlay districts, including Hampton-Pinckney and West End
- 15Stormwater Utility Fees
Used for: FY 2026-2027 stormwater utility rate for developed commercial and industrial property per equivalent residential unit
- 16Wastewater Fees
Used for: FY 2026-2027 monthly wastewater charge for a commercial 5/8-inch to 3/4-inch meter
- 17Live Road Closures
Used for: The City's August 2026 live closure calendar shows multiple event and construction-related closures, but they are location- and time-specific rather than a citywide closure condition
- 18Augusta Street Safety Improvements - Phase Two
Used for: Augusta Street Phase Two remained described as planning near completion and expected to break ground in summer 2026; utility undergrounding Phase I was scheduled to start in late summer 2026
- 19Undergrounding Projects
Used for: Augusta Street Phase Two remained described as planning near completion and expected to break ground in summer 2026; utility undergrounding Phase I was scheduled to start in late summer 2026
- 20
- 21
- 22Pelham Road Commercial Corridor Overlay District Ordinance, Section 8:12
Used for: Greenville County's Pelham Road Commercial Corridor Overlay sets corridor-specific site, connectivity, screening, and facade requirements for covered development
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.