70.1 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Killeen, Texas
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Killeen, Texas. Household service demand was a leading positive mechanism.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
18Sources used
13Primary sources
22Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
0.8 points average among 8 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 6 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Killeen, Texas
Aire Serv, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, and Mr. Rooter produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Household service demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 8 exposed concepts, adding 0.8 points on average. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors was especially relationship-sensitive: removing household service demand moved it from #2 to #5 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 71.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 71.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 71.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 71.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.1 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.1 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Killeen, Texas
Ongoing residential construction accompanies continued resident growth
This relationship affected 8 concepts and added 0.8 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Estimated households in the 2020-2024 ACS period: 59,769 households. [4]
skilled-trade-route-service
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was target-market demand, while the main constraint was competitive environment. [4] [8] [9]
Fort Hood and local higher-education institutions form a large institutional customer context
Actual scoring requires confirmation that the franchise sells to government or educational institutions and can satisfy the relevant procurement, installation-access, contracting, and vendor requirements. [6] [5]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Ongoing residential construction accompanies continued resident growth1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
Large 1998-2009 single-family construction cohort has entered a midlife replacement window1 modeled effect
Housing-system replacement demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Chaparral Road is a documented congestion-relief corridor with limited current capacity1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.6
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
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 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.56 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 | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.56 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#3
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.4
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +1.2 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.2 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.44 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.44 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#5
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.3
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.9 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 |
| +0.9 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.33 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 | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | 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 | 71.33 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#4
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.2
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.22 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 | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | 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 | 71.22 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#6
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.2
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.8 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 |
| +0.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.21 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 | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | 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 | 71.21 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#5
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.0 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.99 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.99 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#8
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
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 | +0.65 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.65 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#12
#8Tier 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: 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 | +0.31 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 applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.31 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#9
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.15 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.15 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#11
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.15 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.15 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#13
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo 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.
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 applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#11
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo 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.
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
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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
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 applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
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
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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #14–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated Aire Serv
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.56 |
| 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.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. Tiger Adjusters moved from #8 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.8 pts
Average across all concepts+0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Population Change From The April 2020 Estimate Base To July 20255.7 percent
- Estimated Households In The 2020 2024 Acs Period59,769 households
- New Single Family Permits Issued In 2024650 permits
Concepts helped most
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+1.2 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.0 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.9 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.9 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.8 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. PuroClean moved from #9 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.3 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank11
What we observed
- New Single Family Permits Issued From 1998 Through 200912,292 permits
- Older Housing And Aging Infrastructure Are Concentrated In Three Local Target AreasThe 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan states that older housing units, aging infrastructure, and single- and multi-unit rentals are located in the three target areas, with housing, commercial development, and infrastructure improvements highly needed in north Killeen. qualitative finding
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.6 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.5 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.4 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.4 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.2 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Labor and staffing frictionNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Referral ecosystemNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 Aire ServModerately sensitive · tested #1–#3
#2 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #1–#5
#3 Mr. RooterStable · tested #3–#4
#4 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #2–#6
#5 Mister Sparky ElectricStable · tested #4–#5
#6 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #2–#8
#7 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #7–#12
#8 Tiger AdjustersStable · tested #8–#9
#9 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #6–#11
#10 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #7–#13
#11 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #9–#11
#12 FASTSIGNSModerately sensitive · tested #10–#12
#13 City WideStable · tested #12–#13
#14 Jan-Pro InternationalStable · tested #14–#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] [9] [10] [5] [17] [18] [1] [2]Property replacement-cycle demand: [9] [8] [1]Competitive environment: [4] [10] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [7] [6] [5] [18] [2] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [16] [15] [13] [1] [2] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [10] [13] [11] [8] [1] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [10] [14] [4] [1]Referral ecosystem: [5] [17] [18] [10]Territory quality: [8] [10] [9] [16] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [11] [12] [14] [13] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand |
|---|---|---|
| #1 Aire Serv | +0.9 pts | +0.6 pts |
| #2 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +1.2 pts | +0.2 pts |
| #3 Mr. Rooter | +0.9 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #4 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.8 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #5 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.8 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #6 HomeSmiles | +1.0 pts | — |
| #7 Workout Anytime | +0.7 pts | — |
| #8 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | — |
| #9 PuroClean | — | +0.1 pts |
| #10 Rainbow International Restoration | — | +0.1 pts |
| #11 ActionCOACH | — | — |
| #12 FASTSIGNS | — | — |
| #13 City Wide | — | — |
| #14 Jan-Pro International | — | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
Aire Serv, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Mr. Rooter led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to competitive environment. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, ZOOM DRAIN, HomeSmiles; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Killeen, Texas
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 Killeen, Texas
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.1 to 70.1. PuroClean ranked highest at 70.1. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.1 points on average among the affected concepts.
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
- 70.1–70.1
- Category average
- 70.1
PuroClean70.1
Rainbow International Restoration70.1
Metric registry
The 22 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 | 161,883people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics | Killeen, Texas | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 5.7percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics | Killeen, Texas | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Estimated households in the 2020-2024 ACS period | 59,769households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics | Killeen, Texas | Used in scoring | [4] |
| New single-family permits issued in 2024 | 650permits | Annual permit history through 2025 and partial 2026 data through May | Killeen, Texas | Used in scoring | [9] |
| New single-family permits issued in 2025 | 493permits | Annual permit history through 2025 and partial 2026 data through May | Killeen, Texas | Used in scoring | [9] |
| New single-family permits shown for January through May 2026 | 261permits | Annual permit history through 2025 and partial 2026 data through May | Killeen, Texas | Used in scoring | [9] |
| New single-family permits issued from 1998 through 2009 | 12,292permits | Annual permit history through 2025 and partial 2026 data through May | Killeen, Texas | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Older housing and aging infrastructure are concentrated in three local target areas | The 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan states that older housing units, aging infrastructure, and single- and multi-unit rentals are located in the three target areas, with housing, commercial development, and infrastructure improvements highly needed in north Killeen.qualitative finding | 2025-2029 plan period | North Killeen Revitalization Area, Local Target Area Small, and Local Target Area Large | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Certificates of occupancy issued between April 2025 and March 2026 | citywide certificates: 278; north killeen revitalization area certificates: 75; north killeen share percent: 27certificates and percent | April 1, 2025 through March 31, 2026 | Killeen and North Killeen Revitalization Area | Conditional relationship | [10] |
| Direct employment associated with Fort Hood in 2025 | 53,767direct employees | 2025 | Fort Hood near Killeen, Texas | Conditional relationship | [5] |
| Active-duty military personnel included in Fort Hood direct employment in 2025 | 34,474people | 2025 | Fort Hood near Killeen, Texas | Context only | [5] |
| Government employment in the Killeen-Temple MSA in June 2026 | 37.6thousand jobs preliminary | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and employment data | Killeen-Temple, Texas MSA | Conditional relationship | [6] |
| Killeen-Temple MSA unemployment rate in June 2026 | 5.5percent preliminary not seasonally adjusted | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and employment data | Killeen-Temple, Texas MSA | Context only | [6] |
| Selected Killeen-Temple MSA mean hourly wages compared with U.S. means | all occupations: killeen: 29.99, united states: 33.54; food preparation and serving: killeen: 14.02, united states: 17.86; building and grounds cleaning: killeen: 16.67, united states: 19.66; sales: killeen: 21.49, united states: 26.43; office and administrative support: killeen: 21.67, united states: 24.79; construction and extraction: killeen: 24.07, united states: 31.42; installation maintenance and repair: killeen: 26.05, united states: 30.44; healthcare practitioners and technical: killeen: 65.55, united states: 52.26dollars per hour mean | May 2025 | Killeen-Temple, Texas MSA | Context only | [7] |
| Texas A&M University-Central Texas Spring 2025 headcount | headcount: 2,417; year over year change percent: 8.2students and percent | Spring 2025 | Texas A&M University-Central Texas, Killeen | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| Central Texas College Spring 2026 enrollment activity change as of January 14 | 13.7percent year over year | Spring 2026 enrollment cycle and 2025-2026 program activity | Central Texas College, Killeen area | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| Chaparral Road project purpose identifies congestion and safety as current corridor issues | TxDOT and local partners state that the project is intended to alleviate congestion and improve safety on Chaparral Road from SH 195 to FM 3481; the proposed design would widen portions from two lanes to four lanes and improve 11 intersections.qualitative finding | Public hearing held August 13, 2026; project development ongoing | Chaparral Road from SH 195 to FM 3481 | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| US 190 Bypass widening remains listed with an estimated 2026 let date | estimated cost: 127,975,830; estimated let year: 2,026; description: Reconstruct and widen to a four-lane divided arterialdollars year and project description | FY2025-2028 funded project listing with later projects | US 190 Bypass, 0.6 mile west of FM 2657 to US 190 west of Clarke Road | Context only | [15] |
| FY2026 commercial and multifamily permit fee structure | new and additions per sqft: 0.2; new and additions plan review per sqft: 0.04; remodel repair improvements per sqft: 0.24; remodel plan review per sqft: 0.04; minimum permit fee: 200dollars per square foot and dollars | Effective October 1, 2025 through September 30, 2026 | Killeen, Texas | Context only | [11] |
| Temporary free-standing banner sign permit and duration limits | display increment days: 5; maximum days per year: 120; maximum size sqft: 32; permit fee: 75; technology fee: 10days square feet and dollars | Enforcement beginning July 1, 2025 | Killeen, Texas | Conditional relationship | [14] [11] [12] |
| Residential parking restriction for commercial-use vehicles over one-ton capacity | Killeen states that commercial-use vehicles with capacity greater than one ton may not be parked in residential areas and directs such vehicles to paved private commercially zoned property; the city also states a 600-foot residential separation restriction for vehicles over one-ton capacity.qualitative rule | Current rules accessed August 2026 | Killeen residentially zoned or used areas | Context only | [13] [3] |
| Current construction code editions used by Killeen | The city lists 2024 editions of the International Building, Energy Conservation, Fire, Fuel Gas, Mechanical, Plumbing, Property Maintenance, and Residential codes, with the 2023 National Electrical Code, as locally amended and effective in 2026.code editions | Current rules accessed August 2026 | Killeen, Texas | Context only | [12] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects that apply without an unresolved site, territory, customer, or project gate.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, Aire Serv reached 71.56 after target-market demand +0.9 pts and property replacement-cycle demand +0.6 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Supplied structural and market research docket (I 172)Internal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Forensic Jurisdictional Audit: Structural Constraints and Hidden Enterprise CostsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - 162Internal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Residential parking restriction for commercial-use vehicles over one-ton capacity
- 4QuickFacts: Killeen city, Texas
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, and Estimated households in the 2020-2024 ACS period
- 5Texas Military Installations, 2025: Fort Hood
Used for: Direct employment associated with Fort Hood in 2025 and Active-duty military personnel included in Fort Hood direct employment in 2025
- 6Killeen-Temple, TX Economy at a Glance
Used for: Government employment in the Killeen-Temple MSA in June 2026 and Killeen-Temple MSA unemployment rate in June 2026
- 7Occupational Employment and Wages in Killeen-Temple — May 2025
Used for: Selected Killeen-Temple MSA mean hourly wages compared with U.S. means
- 8City of Killeen Consolidated Plan 2025-2029
Used for: Older housing and aging infrastructure are concentrated in three local target areas
- 9New Single Family Report
Used for: New single-family permits issued in 2024, New single-family permits issued in 2025, New single-family permits shown for January through May 2026, and New single-family permits issued from 1998 through 2009
- 10City of Killeen reports 278 occupancy certificates Issued in One Year
Used for: Certificates of occupancy issued between April 2025 and March 2026
- 11City of Killeen FY 2026 Development Services Fee Schedule
Used for: FY2026 commercial and multifamily permit fee structure and Temporary free-standing banner sign permit and duration limits
- 12Building Inspections
Used for: Temporary free-standing banner sign permit and duration limits and Current construction code editions used by Killeen
- 13Code Enforcement: Parking in Residential Areas
Used for: Residential parking restriction for commercial-use vehicles over one-ton capacity
- 15KTMPO 2050 MTP Project Listing, November 2025 Amendment #4
Used for: US 190 Bypass widening remains listed with an estimated 2026 let date
- 16Chaparral Road Improvements Project
Used for: Chaparral Road project purpose identifies congestion and safety as current corridor issues
- 17A&M-Central Texas Sets Multiple Enrollment Records for Spring 2025: Continuing Double-Digit Growth
Used for: Texas A&M University-Central Texas Spring 2025 headcount
- 18CTC Sees Increased Enrollment Growth Driven by Military Partnerships, Workforce Innovation and Adult Education Expansion
Used for: Central Texas College Spring 2026 enrollment activity change as of January 14
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.