Local operating-model alignment analysis
Compare 14 franchise concepts in Knoxville and see how $15.31/hour food preparation and serving mean hourly wage shaped local-alignment scores.
Bottom line
We compared 14 franchise concepts against Knoxville's local operating conditions. The Knoxville, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area local condition created one of the strongest positive local signals for concepts exposed to low local occupational wage cost environment. [9] Knoxville's 46.6% owner-occupied housing share created one of the more important local constraints for concepts exposed to low homeownership concentration. [1] [2]
City Wide Facility Solutions scored 70.60. It leads JAN-PRO International by 0.04 points. The documented multifamily housing share in Knoxville is 41.5% of housing units in structures with 2+ units. For City Wide Facility Solutions, this was the largest positive contribution, adding 0.33 points through multifamily housing concentration. [6] [28] The model applied its general operating-friction guardrail at 0.10 points. The largest direct difference versus JAN-PRO International came from Knoxville's professional referral ecosystem, which contributed 0.00 points to City Wide Facility Solutions versus +0.23 points to JAN-PRO International. [41] [42]
What this means: this is a deterministic comparison of documented local conditions against resolved operating-model exposures. It is not an earnings forecast, investment recommendation, or franchise-quality rating.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City Wide Facility SolutionsIntegrated Facility Management | 70.60Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.33 pts41.5% of housing units in structures with 2+ units multifamily… | -0.10 ptsgeneral operating-friction guardrail | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | JAN-PRO InternationalFranchise Consulting TrainingInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 Item 7 source | 70.57Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.23 ptsAAGK comprises apartment owners and managers, communities, and… | -0.10 ptsgeneral operating-friction guardrail | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns & GraphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 Item 7 source | 70.37Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.31 pts397 permits building permits issued | -0.28 pts1.9% industrial vacancy rate | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | ActionCOACHBusiness CoachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 Item 7 source | 70.29Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.28 ptsAAGK comprises apartment owners and managers, communities, and… | -0.10 ptsgeneral operating-friction guardrail | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome InspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 Item 7 source | 70.03Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.65 pts18.3% moved within the prior year recent-mover share | -1.12 pts46.6% owner-occupied housing share | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Rainbow International RestorationProperty RestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 Item 7 source | 69.53Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.27 pts$15.31/hour food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | -0.75 pts46.6% owner-occupied housing share | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | PuroCleanProperty RestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 Item 7 source | 69.41Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.27 pts$15.31/hour food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | -0.75 pts46.6% owner-occupied housing share | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Tiger AdjustersPublic Adjusting & Claims AdvocacyInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 Item 7 source | 69.36Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.15 pts$15.31/hour food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | -1.00 pts46.6% owner-occupied housing share | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Workout AnytimeFull-Service FitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 Item 7 source | 69.13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.41 pts22.2% ages 20-29 young-adult share age 20-29 | -0.94 ptsAll work that disturbs or changes land requires a City of Knoxville… | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | ZOOM DRAINPlumbing & Drain ServicesInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 Item 7 source | 68.94Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.40 pts$15.31/hour food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | -1.12 pts46.6% owner-occupied housing share | Moderate evidence confidence |
Cross-concept impact analysis
A city condition changes a franchise score only when it intersects with a relevant operating-model exposure. The center shows average effect when applied; the surrounding ring shows how broadly that relationship reached across the concepts assessed.
Most relevant modeled attributes: homeownership dependency.
Most relevant modeled attributes: skilled trade labor, technical labor, and administrative labor.
Most relevant modeled attributes: light industrial space and commercial vehicle parking dependency.
Most relevant modeled attributes: single family detached dependency.
Most relevant modeled attributes: high buildout requirement and customer facing fixed location.
Modeled evidence traces
Each trace follows one documented local condition through resolved operating-model exposure, exact score contribution, and the resulting modeled difference. Open either image for the full-size analytical view.
Why the ranking came out this way
The comparison, score path, and counterfactual below all use the same contribution ledger as the published ranking.
The modeled gap is small enough that the two concepts should be treated as a leading cluster rather than a decisive first and second place.
| Modeled relationship | City Wide Facility Solutions | JAN-PRO International | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAGK comprises apartment owners and managers, communities, and vendors serving multifamily housing in Knox and surrounding counties. aAGK multifamily professional audience [41] [42] | 0.00 pts | +0.23 pts | -0.23 pts |
| 41.5% of housing units in structures with 2+ units multifamily housing share [6] [28] | +0.33 pts | +0.23 pts | +0.10 pts |
| 53.4% renter-occupied housing share [1] [2] | +0.15 pts | +0.09 pts | +0.06 pts |
Knoxville's professional referral ecosystem created the largest modeled gap in this head-to-head: 0.00 points for City Wide Facility Solutions versus +0.23 points for JAN-PRO International. [41] [42]
City Wide Facility Solutions, JAN-PRO International, and FASTSIGNS gained more than the rest of the field from multifamily housing concentration and Knoxville, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area through target-market demand. The ordering is assumption-sensitive for City Wide Facility Solutions and FASTSIGNS when individual factors are neutralized and the model is rerun. The same city condition can help one operating model while constraining another, so this ranking describes local operating alignment rather than universal franchise quality. [6] [28] [13]
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.60 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.10 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -0.10 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.603 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.60 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Inside the analysis workflow
Methodology-reference views of the research and QA workflow. Open any image for the full-size version.
Evaluation set
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
Concepts were included when the available operating-model evidence supported a deterministic local-sensitivity profile. Brand participation in our referral network does not affect the score.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
69.47 average across 2 concepts
0.26 points average among 13 affected concepts
0.51 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 12 positions
Conditions that changed the analysis
This relationship affected 13 concepts and added 0.26 points on average among those exposed. [9]
This relationship affected 9 concepts and reduced 1.07 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: 46.6% owner-occupied housing share. [1] [2]
Compare all assessed concepts
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see every material score-changing relationship, with factor net shown only as secondary context; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
5 material local relationships changed this score: 4 advantages and 1 constraint.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 41.5% of housing units in structures with 2+ units multifamily housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #1 to #2 without this driver. | +0.33 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| 53.4% renter-occupied housing share | +0.15 pts | HighEvidence |
| 3,630,410 passengers mcGhee Tyson Airport annual passengers | +0.12 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $15.31/hour food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | +0.10 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| general operating-friction guardrail | -0.10 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected procurement jurisdiction
Applicability depends on the selected procurement jurisdiction
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.60 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.10 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -0.10 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.603 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.60 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
6 material local relationships changed this score: 5 advantages and 1 constraint. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to -0.049 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| AAGK comprises apartment owners and managers, communities, and vendors serving multifamily housing in Knox and surrounding counties. aAGK multifamily professional audienceLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #2 to #3 without this driver. | +0.23 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| general operating-friction guardrail | -0.10 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $15.31/hour food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | +0.07 pts | HighEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected procurement jurisdiction
Applicability depends on the selected procurement jurisdiction
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.36 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.07 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.23 |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -0.10 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.566 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.57 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
7 material local relationships changed this score: 5 advantages and 2 constraints.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 397 permits building permits issuedLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #3 to #4 without this driver. | +0.31 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| 41.5% of housing units in structures with 2+ units multifamily housing share | +0.17 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| 53.4% renter-occupied housing share | +0.07 pts | HighEvidence |
| 3,630,410 passengers mcGhee Tyson Airport annual passengers | +0.06 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1.9% industrial vacancy rate | -0.28 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $15.31/hour food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | +0.18 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| All work that disturbs or changes land requires a City of Knoxville site development permit. site-development permit required for land disturbance | -0.14 pts | HighEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected procurement jurisdiction
Applicability depends on the selected procurement jurisdiction
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.61 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.18 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.28 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -0.14 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.374 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.37 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
3 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 1 constraint. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.034 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| AAGK comprises apartment owners and managers, communities, and vendors serving multifamily housing in Knox and surrounding counties. aAGK multifamily professional audienceLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #4 without this driver. | +0.28 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| general operating-friction guardrail | -0.10 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 41.5% of housing units in structures with 2+ units multifamily housing share | +0.08 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected procurement jurisdiction
Applicability depends on the selected procurement jurisdiction
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.11 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.28 |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -0.10 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.288 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.29 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
5 material local relationships changed this score: 4 advantages and 1 constraint. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to -0.041 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $15.31/hour food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | +0.29 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| AAGK comprises apartment owners and managers, communities, and vendors serving multifamily housing in Knox and surrounding counties. aAGK multifamily professional audience | +0.14 pts | HighEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected submarket
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.41 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.29 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.14 |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.031 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.03 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
4 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 2 constraints. 2 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.090 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $15.31/hour food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | +0.27 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1.9% industrial vacancy rate | -0.21 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected submarket
Applicability depends on the selected corridor
Applicability depends on the selected procurement jurisdiction
Applicability depends on the selected procurement jurisdiction
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.53 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.27 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.21 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.532 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.53 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
5 material local relationships changed this score: 3 advantages and 2 constraints. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.044 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 46.6% owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #7 without this driver. | -0.75 pts | HighEvidence |
| 53.4% renter-occupied housing share | +0.13 pts | HighEvidence |
| 41.5% of housing units in structures with 2+ units multifamily housing share | +0.06 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1.9% industrial vacancy rate | -0.36 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $15.31/hour food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | +0.27 pts | HighEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected submarket
Applicability depends on the selected procurement jurisdiction
Applicability depends on the selected procurement jurisdiction
Applicability depends on the selected corridor
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.51 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.27 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.36 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.406 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.41 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
4 material local relationships changed this score: 3 advantages and 1 constraint. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.042 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $15.31/hour food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | +0.15 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| AAGK comprises apartment owners and managers, communities, and vendors serving multifamily housing in Knox and surrounding counties. aAGK multifamily professional audience | +0.05 pts | HighEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected submarket
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.84 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.15 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.05 |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.358 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.36 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
6 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 4 constraints. 2 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| All work that disturbs or changes land requires a City of Knoxville site development permit. site-development permit required for land disturbanceLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #9 to #5 without this driver. | -0.94 pts | HighEvidence |
| KUB lists a $3,600 standard tap fee for a 2-inch water meter. kUB 2-inch standard water tap fee | -0.23 pts | HighEvidence |
| KUB requires all new or renovated food-service facilities to install and maintain grease-control equipment; KUB determines equipment type and size. kUB grease-control equipment requirement for new or renovated food-service facilities | -0.07 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $15.31/hour food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | +0.15 pts | HighEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected site specific
Applicability depends on the selected district
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.25 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.15 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -1.27 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.127 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.13 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
6 material local relationships changed this score: 3 advantages and 3 constraints. 3 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.023 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 46.6% owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #10 to #9 without this driver. | -1.12 pts | HighEvidence |
| 52.1% of occupied housing units detached single-family housing share | -0.24 pts | HighEvidence |
| 53.4% renter-occupied housing share | +0.07 pts | HighEvidence |
| 41.5% of housing units in structures with 2+ units multifamily housing share | +0.06 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $15.31/hour food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | +0.40 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1.9% industrial vacancy rate | -0.26 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected submarket
Applicability depends on the selected corridor
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -1.20 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.40 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.26 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.940 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.94 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
7 material local relationships changed this score: 4 advantages and 3 constraints.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 46.6% owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #11 to #12 without this driver. | -1.24 pts | HighEvidence |
| 52.1% of occupied housing units detached single-family housing share | -0.40 pts | HighEvidence |
| 41.5% of housing units in structures with 2+ units multifamily housing share | +0.07 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| 53.4% renter-occupied housing share | +0.07 pts | HighEvidence |
| $54,039 median household income | -0.07 pts | HighEvidence |
| 3,630,410 passengers mcGhee Tyson Airport annual passengers | +0.06 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $15.31/hour food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | +0.32 pts | HighEvidence |
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -1.52 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.32 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.801 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.80 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
5 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 3 constraints. 3 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.053 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 46.6% owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #12 to #11 without this driver. | -1.12 pts | HighEvidence |
| 52.1% of occupied housing units detached single-family housing share | -0.24 pts | HighEvidence |
| 397 permits building permits issued | +0.06 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $15.31/hour food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | +0.41 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1.9% industrial vacancy rate | -0.36 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -1.25 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.41 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.36 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.792 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.79 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
4 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 3 constraints. 5 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.152 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1.9% industrial vacancy rate | -0.47 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $15.31/hour food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | +0.40 pts | HighEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected corridor
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -1.21 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.40 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.47 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.725 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.73 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
4 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 3 constraints. 2 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to -0.013 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $15.31/hour food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | +0.34 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1.9% industrial vacancy rate | -0.14 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected corridor
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -1.59 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.34 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.14 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.613 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.61 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Factor impact
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 14 concepts changed position. Mister Sparky Electric moved from #14 to #4, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 4 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #3 to #4, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
We applied site and operating-base constraints only to concepts requiring comparable storefront, production, warehouse, or fleet space.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. Mr. Rooter moved from #13 to #10, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 4 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 2 concepts changed position. JAN-PRO International moved from #2 to #3, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
We separated regulations that create operating burdens from those that may create demand for qualified compliance and retrofit services.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 5 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. Workout Anytime moved from #9 to #4, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Rank stability
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.
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Net factor impact
This graph plots net factor totals for the top 14 concepts. A near-zero net can contain meaningful positive and negative scored relationships that offset each other; those underlying drivers remain visible in each franchise's expanded score explanation.
| Concept | Target-market demand | Labor and staffing friction | Real estate and site feasibility | Referral ecosystem | Regulatory and operating friction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide Facility Solutions | +0.60 pts | +0.10 pts | — | — | -0.10 pts |
| #2 JAN-PRO International | +0.40 pts | +0.10 pts | — | +0.20 pts | -0.10 pts |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +0.60 pts | +0.20 pts | -0.30 pts | — | -0.10 pts |
| #4 ActionCOACH | +0.10 pts | — | — | +0.30 pts | -0.10 pts |
| #5 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | -0.40 pts | +0.30 pts | — | +0.10 pts | — |
| #6 Rainbow International Restoration | -0.50 pts | +0.30 pts | -0.20 pts | — | — |
| #7 PuroClean | -0.50 pts | +0.30 pts | -0.40 pts | — | — |
| #8 Tiger Adjusters | -0.80 pts | +0.10 pts | — | +0.10 pts | — |
| #9 Workout Anytime | +0.20 pts | +0.20 pts | — | — | -1.30 pts |
| #10 ZOOM DRAIN | -1.20 pts | +0.40 pts | -0.30 pts | — | — |
| #11 HomeSmiles | -1.50 pts | +0.30 pts | — | — | — |
| #12 Aire Serv | -1.30 pts | +0.40 pts | -0.40 pts | — | — |
| #13 Mr. Rooter | -1.20 pts | +0.40 pts | -0.50 pts | — | — |
| #14 Mister Sparky Electric | -1.60 pts | +0.30 pts | -0.10 pts | — | — |
Interpretation
City Wide Facility Solutions, JAN-PRO International, and FASTSIGNS gained more than the rest of the field from multifamily housing concentration and Knoxville, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area through target-market demand. The ordering is assumption-sensitive for City Wide Facility Solutions and FASTSIGNS when individual factors are neutralized and the model is rerun. The same city condition can help one operating model while constraining another, so this ranking describes local operating alignment rather than universal franchise quality.
Category comparisons
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
2 Property Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.41 to 69.53. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 69.53. Labor and staffing friction added 0.27 points on average among the affected concepts. Target-market demand reduced the exposed concepts by 0.52 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.13-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
2 Plumbing & Drain Services concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 68.73 to 68.94. ZOOM DRAIN ranked highest at 68.94. Labor and staffing friction added 0.40 points on average among the affected concepts. Target-market demand reduced the exposed concepts by 1.20 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.21-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
Metric registry
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population estimate | 202,021 people | 2020-2025 estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census/retail data | Knoxville, Tennessee | Context only | [1] |
| Population change since 2020 | 6.0% growth | 2020-2025 estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census/retail data | Knoxville, Tennessee | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Population density | 1,932.1 people per square mile | 2020-2025 estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census/retail data | Knoxville, Tennessee | Context only | [1] |
| Household count | 86,263 households | 2020-2025 estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census/retail data | Knoxville, Tennessee | Context only | [1] |
| Housing-unit count | 99,290 housing units | 2024 ACS 1-year | Knoxville, Tennessee | Context only | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing share | 46.6% | 2020-2025 estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census/retail data | Knoxville, Tennessee | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Renter-occupied housing share | 53.4% | 2020-2025 estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census/retail data | Knoxville, Tennessee | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Detached single-family housing share | 52.1% of occupied housing units | 2024 ACS 1-year | Knoxville, Tennessee | Used in scoring | [5] [6] |
| Recent-mover share | 18.3% moved within the prior year | 2020-2025 estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census/retail data | Knoxville, Tennessee | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Median owner-occupied home value | $239,700 | 2020-2025 estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census/retail data | Knoxville, Tennessee | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Median household income | $54,039 | 2020-2025 estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census/retail data | Knoxville, Tennessee | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Poverty rate | 20.2% | 2020-2025 estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census/retail data | Knoxville, Tennessee | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Mean travel time to work | 20.2 minutes | 2020-2025 estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census/retail data | Knoxville, Tennessee | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Retail sales per capita | $51,934 per capita | 2020-2025 estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census/retail data | Knoxville, Tennessee | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
How to use the ranking
Methodology
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply fully supported relationships at full weight and otherwise scoreable research- or taxonomy-gated relationships at a reduced provisional weight.
Keep territory-, site-, customer-, project-, or configuration-dependent relationships outside the baseline score until the relevant candidate selections are known.
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
Every concept starts from the same 70.00 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In Knoxville, City Wide Facility Solutions reached 70.603. Target-market demand combined several local relationships for a net +0.60 points. [6] [28] [1] [2] Labor and staffing friction totaled +0.10 points, led by knoxville, tn metropolitan statistical area at +0.10 points. [9] Regulatory and operating friction netted to -0.10 points after combining observed local relationships with a conservative or model-applied adjustment.
The current model caps total local movement at ±18.00 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Score calibration
Each score-changing relationship starts with its model-defined maximum effect. The documented city-condition strength and the franchise's weighted operating exposure scale that maximum. Evidence confidence, provenance, geographic applicability, and the profile-confidence multiplier then modify the pre-cap effect. Fully supported relationships use full weight; broadly applicable relationships held back only by research or taxonomy-review gates use an additional 0.80 eligibility multiplier. Candidate-dependent site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections remain outside the baseline score until resolved. Correlation and score caps can reduce the resulting magnitude before the final contribution is added to the common baseline.
The model does not use one universal Minor/Moderate/Strong point table. Relationship-specific max_effect values are the actual point ceilings, so publishing generic point bands would misstate the scoring system.
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Reports are checked for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability before publication.
Model updates are versioned and dated, documenting material changes to scoring, evidence handling, methodology, governance, and presentation across published reports.
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
The city page keeps the local sources used for its visible findings and metrics. Franchise-source provenance stays with the underlying franchise research rather than being duplicated across every city page.
Used for: Population estimate, Population change since 2020, Population density, Household count, and Owner-occupied housing share
Used for: Population change since 2020, Owner-occupied housing share, Renter-occupied housing share, Recent-mover share, and Median owner-occupied home value
Used for: Housing-unit count
Used for: Detached single-family housing share
Used for: Detached single-family housing share
Before contacting a franchisor
Apply the analysis to your situation
The city score does not include your experience, capital structure, time commitment, financing, or exact territory.
Twenty Twenty-Five
