70.1 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Jacksonville, Florida
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Jacksonville, Florida. Local business 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
25Sources used
13Primary sources
39Local 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 13 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 12 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Jacksonville, Florida
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, 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 0.6 points on average. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 72.5Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.5 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 72.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.0 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 71.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 71.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 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 Jacksonville, Florida
Large professional, healthcare, logistics and retail activity supports local business-account demand without establishing uniform walk-in density
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 0.6 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Education and health services employment, preliminary June 2026: 139,900 jobs. [10] [7]
Jacksonville exceeds one million residents and grew 7.2 percent from the 2020 estimate base to 2025
Jacksonville’s resident scale is distributed across 747.29 square miles, ten mobility zones, multiple development-area tiers, river and flood constraints, and district-specific rules. Population and growth support market scale but do not establish uniform walk-in density, route productivity, customer access or site feasibility. [7] [20] [21] [22]
recurring-commercial-service
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was target-market demand, while the main constraint was property replacement-cycle demand. [23] [10] [7] [9] [24]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large professional, healthcare, logistics and retail activity supports local business-account demand without establishing uniform walk-in density1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Recent population growth and city-centered rental construction expand the household service base, with uneven submarket distribution1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
Large hospital systems and continuing campus investment support institutional facility-service demand1 modeled effect
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
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 alignment72.5
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +2.5 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 | +2.5 pts | |
| Net local movement | +2.50 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
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.5 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.50 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#12
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment72.0
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +2.0 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 | +2.0 pts | |
| Net local movement | +2.00 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 | +2.0 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#14
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.6
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
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 | |
| Net local movement | +1.63 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 | 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 | 71.63 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#3
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.6
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +1.6 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 | +1.6 pts | |
| Net local movement | +1.62 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 | +1.6 |
| 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 | 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 | 71.62 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#6
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.2
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +1.2 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 | +1.2 pts | |
| Net local movement | +1.17 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 | +1.2 |
| 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 | 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 | 71.17 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#5
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
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 | |
| Net local movement | +0.71 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | +0.7 |
| 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 | 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 | 70.71 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#9
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.7 pts | |
| Net local movement | +0.66 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 | 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 | 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 | 70.66 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#7
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
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 | |
| Net local movement | +0.63 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 | 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 | 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 | 70.63 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#8
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.6 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 | +0.6 pts | |
| Net local movement | +0.62 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 | 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 | 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 | 70.62 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#9
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.4 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 |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.41 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 | +0.4 |
| 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 | 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 | 70.41 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#10
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
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 |
| 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
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | 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 | 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 | 70.32 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#11
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.3 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 | +0.3 pts | |
| Net local movement | +0.31 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 | +0.3 |
| 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 | 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 | 70.31 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
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 | +0.17 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 included in the score |
| 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 | 70.17 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #13–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.5 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.50 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.5 |
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 effectPositive local support
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 14 concepts changed position. Rainbow International Restoration moved from #13 to #2, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected+1.0 pts
Average across all concepts+0.9 pts
Concepts changing rank14
What we observed
- Population Change From April 1, 2020 Estimate Base To July 1, 20257.2 percent
- Households394,370 households
- Health Care And Social Assistance Receipts/revenue12,111,694,000 usd
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+2.5 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+2.0 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.6 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+1.6 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+1.2 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
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Referral ecosystemNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideHighly sensitive · tested #1–#12
#2 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#14
#3 HomeSmilesStable · tested #2–#3
#4 FASTSIGNSModerately sensitive · tested #4–#6
#5 ActionCOACHStable · tested #5–#5
#6 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsModerately sensitive · tested #6–#9
#7 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #1–#7
#8 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #4–#8
#9 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #7–#9
#10 Mister Sparky ElectricModerately sensitive · tested #8–#10
#11 Workout AnytimeStable · tested #11–#11
#12 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #3–#12
#13 Rainbow International RestorationStable · tested #13–#13
#14 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #10–#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: [7] [8] [9] [10] [23] [24] [4]Property replacement-cycle demand: [7] [8] [9] [21] [22] [4]Competitive environment: [7] [9] [14]Labor and staffing friction: [10] [11] [9] [5] [4]Transportation, routing, and parking: [7] [15] [20] [4] [5] [6]Real estate and site feasibility: [12] [13] [14] [19] [20] [18] [21]Sales and customer acquisition: [7] [16] [17] [25] [6]Referral ecosystem: [9] [23] [24] [25] [10]Territory quality: [7] [20] [21] [22] [18] [14] [6]Regulatory and operating friction: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [5] [6]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand |
|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +2.5 pts |
| #2 Jan-Pro International | +2.0 pts |
| #3 HomeSmiles | +1.6 pts |
| #4 FASTSIGNS | +1.6 pts |
| #5 ActionCOACH | +1.2 pts |
| #6 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.7 pts |
| #7 Aire Serv | +0.7 pts |
| #8 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.6 pts |
| #9 Mr. Rooter | +0.6 pts |
| #10 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.4 pts |
| #11 Workout Anytime | +0.3 pts |
| #12 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts |
| #13 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.2 pts |
| #14 PuroClean | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, HomeSmiles led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to property replacement-cycle demand. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for City Wide, Jan-Pro International, Aire Serv; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Jacksonville, Florida
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.1Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Jacksonville, Florida
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.0 to 70.2. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.2. Target-market demand added 0.1 points on average among the affected concepts.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.2-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.0–70.2
- Category average
- 70.1
Rainbow International Restoration70.2
PuroClean70.0
Metric registry
The 39 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, July 1, 2025 | 1,017,689people | 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic receipts; 2020 land area | Jacksonville, Florida | Supports research conclusion | [7] |
| Population change from April 1, 2020 estimate base to July 1, 2025 | 7.2percent | 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic receipts; 2020 land area | Jacksonville, Florida | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Land area | 747.29square miles | 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic receipts; 2020 land area | Jacksonville, Florida | Conditional relationship | [7] |
| Population density | 1,270.7people per square mile | 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic receipts; 2020 land area | Jacksonville, Florida | Conditional relationship | [7] |
| Households | 394,370households | 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic receipts; 2020 land area | Jacksonville, Florida | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Owner-occupied housing-unit rate | 57.6percent | 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic receipts; 2020 land area | Jacksonville, Florida | Context only | [7] |
| Housing units | 449,941housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates | Jacksonville, Florida | Context only | [8] |
| Mean travel time to work | 24.1minutes | 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic receipts; 2020 land area | Jacksonville, Florida | Context only | [7] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue | 12,111,694,000usd | 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic receipts; 2020 land area | Jacksonville, Florida | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Transportation and warehousing receipts/revenue | 9,725,439,000usd | 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic receipts; 2020 land area | Jacksonville, Florida | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Total retail sales | 28,605,456,000usd | 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic receipts; 2020 land area | Jacksonville, Florida | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Share of HMA rental units under construction located in the city | nearly two-thirdsshare description | Conditions as of January 1, 2024; forecast through January 1, 2027 | Jacksonville, Florida | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Rental units under construction in the HMA as of January 1, 2024 | 10,500rental units | Conditions as of January 1, 2024; forecast through January 1, 2027 | Jacksonville HMA | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Estimated additional sales-unit demand during the three-year forecast period | 39,250sales units | Conditions as of January 1, 2024; forecast through January 1, 2027 | Jacksonville HMA | Context only | [9] |
| Unemployment rate, preliminary June 2026 | 4.8percent | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and payroll data; extracted August 4, 2026 | Jacksonville, FL MSA | Context only | [10] |
| Total nonfarm employment, preliminary June 2026 | 800,300jobs | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and payroll data; extracted August 4, 2026 | Jacksonville, FL MSA | Context only | [10] |
| Professional and business services employment, preliminary June 2026 | 118,800jobs | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and payroll data; extracted August 4, 2026 | Jacksonville, FL MSA | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Education and health services employment, preliminary June 2026 | 139,900jobs | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and payroll data; extracted August 4, 2026 | Jacksonville, FL MSA | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Trade, transportation and utilities employment, preliminary June 2026 | 170,200jobs | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and payroll data; extracted August 4, 2026 | Jacksonville, FL MSA | Context only | [10] |
| Mean hourly wage for all occupations | 31.59usd per hour | May 2025 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics | Jacksonville, FL MSA | Context only | [11] |
| Mean hourly wage for food preparation and serving related occupations | 17.57usd per hour | May 2025 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics | Jacksonville, FL MSA | Context only | [11] |
| Mean hourly wage for building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations | 18.71usd per hour | May 2025 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics | Jacksonville, FL MSA | Context only | [11] |
| Mean hourly wage for installation, maintenance and repair occupations | 28.75usd per hour | May 2025 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics | Jacksonville, FL MSA | Context only | [11] |
| Office and administrative support employment | 96,850jobs | May 2025 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics | Jacksonville, FL MSA | Context only | [11] |
| Named major healthcare employers and reported employment | Baptist Health System Inc.: 12,000; Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research: 8,450; University of Florida Health: 6,600employees by employer | Conditions as of January 1, 2024; forecast through January 1, 2027 | Jacksonville HMA, employers primarily in Duval County | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Overall industrial vacancy rate | 10.9percent | Second quarter 2026 | Jacksonville industrial market | Context only | [12] |
| Overall industrial vacancy rate | 9.8percent | Second quarter 2026 | Jacksonville industrial market | Context only | [13] |
| Overall industrial vacancy rate | 11.6percent | Office and industrial Q2 2026; retail Q1 2026; multifamily Q2 2026 | Jacksonville industrial market | Context only | [14] |
| Overall office vacancy rate | 20.5percent | Office and industrial Q2 2026; retail Q1 2026; multifamily Q2 2026 | Jacksonville office market | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| I-95 widening from I-10 to Beaver Street remains a PD&E study with project start, expected completion and cost listed as TBD | stage: PD&E study; project start: TBD; expected completion: TBD; cost: TBDstatus record | Current project page accessed August 5, 2026 | I-95 from I-10 to Beaver Street, Jacksonville | Supports modeled relationship | [15] |
| City charter and ordinances prohibit off-site billboards while separately regulating on-site signs | off-site billboards prohibitedlegal rule | Current ordinance guidance accessed August 5, 2026 | Jacksonville, Florida | Conditional relationship | [16] [17] |
| Certificate of Appropriateness is required for properties in three locally designated historic districts and locally designated landmarks | district or landmark propertiesapplicability scope | Current process accessed August 5, 2026 | Locally designated Jacksonville historic districts and landmarks | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| Mobility Fee Calculation Certificate and Mobility Fee Contract Application fees | mobility fee calculation certificate: 688; mobility fee contract application: 1,830usd | Current fee schedule accessed August 5, 2026 | Jacksonville, Florida | Context only | [19] |
| CRC fee for a nonresidential new building or addition not preceded by CCAS | base rate: 17; base rate unit: per 1000 sqft up to 500000; incremental rate: 8; incremental rate unit: per additional 1000 sqftfee formula | Current fee schedule accessed August 5, 2026 | Jacksonville, Florida | Context only | [19] |
| Mobility fees apply to new development and to renovation, conversion or expansion when traffic generation increases | traffic-increasing development activityapplicability rule | Current FAQ accessed August 5, 2026 | Jacksonville, Florida | Context only | [20] |
| Number of mobility zones used by the city | 10mobility zones | Current FAQ accessed August 5, 2026 | Jacksonville, Florida | Conditional relationship | [20] |
| Local resilience program uses compound flood modeling across coastal, riverine and inland stormwater mechanisms and more than 50,000 scenarios | more than 50000modeled scenarios | 2025 annual resilience program update | Jacksonville and Duval County | Conditional relationship | [22] [21] |
| Mayo Clinic Florida announced a five-floor hospital expansion adding 166 beds as part of a plan to more than double Florida patient-care, research and education space | floors: 5; new beds: 166project scope | Expansion announcement and planned capacity | Mayo Clinic Florida campus, Jacksonville | Used in scoring | [24] |
| City procurement portal publishes bidding opportunities for city agencies | public bid portal availablechannel status | Current procurement portal accessed August 5, 2026 | Jacksonville, Florida | Context only | [25] |
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 72.50 after target-market demand +2.5 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.
- 1Franchise-to-city operating-fit model definitionInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Valid city JSON exampleInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Jacksonville city research JSON extraction promptInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4Structural inefficiency and operating-fit research docketInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 5Forensic Audit Report: Structural Capital Constraints and Jurisdictional Risk ProfilesInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 6Franchise neighborhood research rowsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 7QuickFacts: Jacksonville city, Florida
Used for: Resident population estimate, July 1, 2025, Population change from April 1, 2020 estimate base to July 1, 2025, Land area, Population density, and Households
- 8Jacksonville, FL profile data, ACS 2024 1-year
Used for: Housing units
- 9Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis for Jacksonville, Florida
Used for: Share of HMA rental units under construction located in the city, Rental units under construction in the HMA as of January 1, 2024, Estimated additional sales-unit demand during the three-year forecast period, and Named major healthcare employers and reported employment
- 10Jacksonville, FL Economy at a Glance
Used for: Unemployment rate, preliminary June 2026, Total nonfarm employment, preliminary June 2026, Professional and business services employment, preliminary June 2026, Education and health services employment, preliminary June 2026, and Trade, transportation and utilities employment, preliminary June 2026
- 11Occupational Employment and Wages in Jacksonville, FL — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wage for all occupations, Mean hourly wage for food preparation and serving related occupations, Mean hourly wage for building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations, Mean hourly wage for installation, maintenance and repair occupations, and Office and administrative support employment
- 12Jacksonville Industrial Figures Q2 2026
Used for: Overall industrial vacancy rate
- 13Jacksonville Industrial Market Report Q2 2026
Used for: Overall industrial vacancy rate
- 14Jacksonville MarketBeat Reports
Used for: Overall industrial vacancy rate and Overall office vacancy rate
- 15I-95 Widening from I-10 to Beaver Street
Used for: I-95 widening from I-10 to Beaver Street remains a PD&E study with project start, expected completion and cost listed as TBD
- 16Sign Laws
Used for: City charter and ordinances prohibit off-site billboards while separately regulating on-site signs
- 17Chapter 656, Part 13 Sign Regulations
Used for: City charter and ordinances prohibit off-site billboards while separately regulating on-site signs
- 18Certificate of Appropriateness Process
Used for: Certificate of Appropriateness is required for properties in three locally designated historic districts and locally designated landmarks
- 19City Fees
Used for: Mobility Fee Calculation Certificate and Mobility Fee Contract Application fees and CRC fee for a nonresidential new building or addition not preceded by CCAS
- 20Concurrency and Mobility Management System Office FAQ
Used for: Mobility fees apply to new development and to renovation, conversion or expansion when traffic generation increases and Number of mobility zones used by the city
- 21Floodplain Management
Used for: Local resilience program uses compound flood modeling across coastal, riverine and inland stormwater mechanisms and more than 50,000 scenarios
- 22Resilient Jacksonville Annual Update 2025
Used for: Local resilience program uses compound flood modeling across coastal, riverine and inland stormwater mechanisms and more than 50,000 scenarios
- 23
- 24Mayo Clinic in Florida hospital expansion
Used for: Mayo Clinic Florida announced a five-floor hospital expansion adding 166 beds as part of a plan to more than double Florida patient-care, research and education space
- 25City of Jacksonville bidding opportunities
Used for: City procurement portal publishes bidding opportunities for city agencies
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.