70.7 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Lafayette, Louisiana
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Lafayette, Louisiana. Healthcare institutional 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
25Local sources used
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
0.9 points average among 7 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 12 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Lafayette, Louisiana
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, and FASTSIGNS produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Healthcare institutional service demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 7 exposed concepts, adding 0.6 points on average. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 72.4Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.1 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.5 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsReferral ecosystem | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | HomeSmilesHome & Property ServicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Lafayette, Louisiana
Large healthcare institutions support a measurable institutional service market in Lafayette
This relationship affected 7 concepts and added 0.6 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Two large health systems are among the largest Lafayette Parish employers: Ochsner Lafayette General: 4,768; Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center: 3,004 employees. [6] [7] [20] [5]
The 2022 Lafayette city market profile estimated a daytime population of 170,969 versus 122,177 residents.
The daytime inflow supports institutional and employment-center demand, but the aggregate daytime-population figure does not establish uniform walk-in density across Lafayette. Large healthcare, university, and government anchors concentrate a material share of the activity, so site-level consumer traffic still requires corridor and daypart evidence. [11] [2] [5] [6] [10]
recurring-commercial-service
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was target-market demand, while the main constraint was property replacement-cycle demand. [5] [7] [6] [20] [25] [10]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large healthcare institutions support a measurable institutional service market in Lafayette1 modeled effect
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
UL Lafayette and public-sector anchors support institutional account and professional-relationship opportunities3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 5 sources
- University and consolidated-government employer anchors: University of Louisiana at Lafayette: 2,516; Lafayette Consolidated Government: 2,201 employees [6] [7]
- LCG purchasing rules impose formal quote and public-bid processes above defined thresholds: supplies written quotes from: 2,501; supplies public bid from: 60,000; public works formal quotes from: 2,501; public works public bid from: 250,000; contractor license required for public work over: 50,000 US dollars thresholds [25]
- University of Louisiana at Lafayette total enrollment in Fall 2025: 19,723 students [10] [4]
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Institutional professional relationship baseReferral ecosystem
Formal public procurement creates longer acquisition cycles for concepts that depend on institutional contracts1 modeled effect
Institutional procurement-cycle frictionSales and customer acquisition
Expansive-soil exposure creates a supported foundation and moisture-related service mechanism in the Lafayette area1 modeled effect
Moisture and foundation service demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
MN zoning districts impose sign-format limits that can require brand-prototype adaptation1 modeled effect
Signage and prototype adaptation burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.4
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +2.1 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 | +2.1 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.39 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.1 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.39 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#4
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.5
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.5 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.5 pts | |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.53 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 71.53 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#14
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.9 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 | +0.9 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.94 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.1 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.94 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#8
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand | +0.4 pts | |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.83 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.83 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#7
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.6 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 |
| +0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand | +0.3 pts | |
| Net local movement | +0.83 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 70.83 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#6
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
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 | |
| Net local movement | +0.76 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 70.76 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#10
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.6 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 |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.55 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 70.55 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#13
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.25 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.25 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#12
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.2 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.20 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 70.20 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#9
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.2 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.20 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 70.20 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#10
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.1 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 |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.09 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.1 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 70.09 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#11
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Mister Sparky Electric
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.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #13–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.1 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.39 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model 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 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 14 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #2 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.9 pts
Average across all concepts+0.4 pts
Concepts changing rank14
What we observed
- Health Care And Social Assistance Receipts In 20224,017,899,000 US dollars
- Two Large Health Systems Are Among The Largest Lafayette Parish EmployersOchsner Lafayette General: 4,768; Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center: 3,004 employees
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+2.1 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.5 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.9 pts
HomeSmilesHome & Property Services
+0.8 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.4 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 5 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors moved from #8 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted5 of 14
Average among affected+0.3 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Peer Reviewed Louisiana Model Identifies Lafayette Among Urban Areas With Modeled Expansive Soil Property Loss Exposure And Greater Per Building Loss Propensitycity named in property loss pattern: yes; parcel specific risk not established: yes qualitative
Concepts helped most
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.6 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.6 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.3 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.2 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.2 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Referral ecosystem
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 3 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 4 concepts changed position. ActionCOACH moved from #4 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted3 of 14
Average among affected+0.3 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank4
Concepts helped most
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.4 pts
City WideFacility management
+0.3 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.1 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Labor and staffing frictionNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideModerately sensitive · tested #1–#4
#2 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#14
#3 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #3–#8
#4 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #3–#7
#5 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #2–#6
#6 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #5–#10
#7 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #1–#13
#8 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #5–#12
#9 ZOOM DRAINModerately sensitive · tested #6–#9
#10 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #7–#10
#11 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #7–#11
#12 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #8–#12
#13 Mister Sparky ElectricModerately sensitive · tested #11–#13
#14 Workout AnytimeStable · tested #13–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Score-changing factors
Factors that changed the calculated scores
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: [5] [11] [6] [7] [10] [20] [25] [2]Property replacement-cycle demand: [12] [7] [5] [2]Competitive environment: [5] [20] [4]Labor and staffing friction: [8] [9] [6] [7] [3]Transportation, routing, and parking: [21] [22] [23] [24] [11] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [13] [14] [15] [16] [19] [2]Sales and customer acquisition: [25] [20] [5] [4]Referral ecosystem: [6] [7] [10] [20] [25]Territory quality: [14] [15] [19] [21] [24] [11] [4]Regulatory and operating friction: [17] [18] [16] [19] [20] [3] [4]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +2.1 pts | — | +0.3 pts |
| #2 Jan-Pro International | +1.5 pts | — | — |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +0.9 pts | — | +0.1 pts |
| #4 ActionCOACH | +0.4 pts | — | +0.4 pts |
| #5 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.3 pts | +0.6 pts | — |
| #6 HomeSmiles | +0.8 pts | — | — |
| #7 PuroClean | — | +0.6 pts | — |
| #8 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | +0.3 pts | — |
| #9 ZOOM DRAIN | — | +0.2 pts | — |
| #10 Mr. Rooter | — | +0.2 pts | — |
| #11 Tiger Adjusters | +0.1 pts | — | — |
| #12 Aire Serv | — | — | — |
| #13 Mister Sparky Electric | — | — | — |
| #14 Workout Anytime | — | — | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, FASTSIGNS 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 Jan-Pro International, FASTSIGNS, ActionCOACH; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Lafayette, Louisiana
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.7Limited comparison: Restoration franchise opportunities assessed in Lafayette, Louisiana
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.6 to 70.8. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.8. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.6 points on average among the affected concepts.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.3-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.6–70.8
- Category average
- 70.7
Rainbow International Restoration70.8
PuroClean70.6
Limited two-concept comparison
70.4Limited comparison: Home & Property Services franchise opportunities assessed in Lafayette, Louisiana
2 Home & Property Services concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.0 to 70.8. HomeSmiles ranked highest at 70.8. Target-market demand added 0.4 points on average among the affected concepts.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.8-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.0–70.8
- Category average
- 70.4
HomeSmiles70.8
Aire Serv70.0
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 | 123,311people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic census measures | Lafayette, Louisiana | Context only | [5] |
| Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 1.6percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic census measures | Lafayette, Louisiana | Context only | [5] |
| Households and owner-occupied housing share | households: 52,966; owner occupied rate percent: 53.1mixed | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic census measures | Lafayette, Louisiana | Context only | [5] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts in 2022 | 4,017,899,000US dollars | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic census measures | Lafayette, Louisiana | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Retail sales in 2022 | 4,489,386,000US dollars | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic census measures | Lafayette, Louisiana | Context only | [5] |
| Two large health systems are among the largest Lafayette Parish employers | Ochsner Lafayette General: 4,768; Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center: 3,004employees | 2023-2024 employer and industry snapshot | Lafayette Parish, Louisiana | Used in scoring | [6] [7] [20] |
| University of Louisiana at Lafayette total enrollment in Fall 2025 | 19,723students | Fall 2025 enrollment census | University of Louisiana at Lafayette | Supports modeled relationship | [10] [4] |
| University and consolidated-government employer anchors | University of Louisiana at Lafayette: 2,516; Lafayette Consolidated Government: 2,201employees | 2023-2024 employer and industry snapshot | Lafayette Parish, Louisiana | Supports modeled relationship | [6] [7] |
| Professional and healthcare establishment counts in Lafayette Parish | professional scientific technical services establishments: 1,313; health care social assistance establishments: 1,203establishments | 2026 plan; employer and Census County Business Patterns data for Lafayette Parish | Lafayette Parish, Louisiana | Conditional relationship | [20] |
| 2022 ESRI daytime population estimate for Lafayette city | daytime population: 170,969; workers: 113,185; residents: 57,784people | 2022 estimates and 2027 forecast | Lafayette, Louisiana | Supports research conclusion | [11] [2] |
| Lafayette MSA mean wages and employment shares for franchise-relevant major occupation groups | all occupations: lafayette mean hourly: 25.06, us mean hourly: 33.54; healthcare support: employment share percent: 5.8, lafayette mean hourly: 14.16, us mean hourly: 19.62; food preparation serving: employment share percent: 10.3, lafayette mean hourly: 12.3, us mean hourly: 17.86; building grounds cleaning maintenance: employment share percent: 2.6, lafayette mean hourly: 14.86, us mean hourly: 19.66; office administrative support: employment share percent: 12.6, lafayette mean hourly: 20.01, us mean hourly: 24.79; construction extraction: employment share percent: 5.4, lafayette mean hourly: 25.55, us mean hourly: 31.42; installation maintenance repair: employment share percent: 5.4, lafayette mean hourly: 26.06, us mean hourly: 30.44; transportation material moving: employment share percent: 9.7, lafayette mean hourly: 20.88, us mean hourly: 23.96mixed | May 2025 | Lafayette, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [8] [3] |
| Lafayette MSA unemployment rate in June 2026 | 4.3percent | Labor-force and nonfarm employment through June 2026 | Lafayette, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [9] |
| Peer-reviewed Louisiana model identifies Lafayette among urban areas with modeled expansive-soil property-loss exposure and greater per-building loss propensity | city named in property loss pattern: yes; parcel specific risk not established: yesqualitative | Historical Louisiana expansive-soil model with projections to 2050 | Lafayette urban area within Louisiana census-block model | Used in scoring | [12] [2] |
| Q1 2026 Lafayette industrial market indicators | vacancy rate percent: 3.97; average nnn asking rent per sqft: 9.53; inventory sqft: 41,876,612; under construction sqft: 78,080mixed | Q1 2026 Lafayette industrial market | Lafayette, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [13] [2] |
| Current asking-rate comparison among named Lafayette retail submarkets | Ambassador Caffery Parkway: average available sqft: 1,800, average rate per sqft per month: 1.04; River Ranch: average available sqft: 1,600, average rate per sqft per month: 1.64; The Oil Center: average available sqft: 2,400, average rate per sqft per month: 1.2mixed | Live / recently crawled retail listing and neighborhood comparison data accessed August 2026 | Ambassador Caffery Parkway, River Ranch, and The Oil Center, Lafayette | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| Active 1,822-square-foot former Starbucks suite at 5709 Johnston Street | asking rate per sqft per year: 35; suite sqft: 1,822; last updated: 2026-08-04mixed | Listing last updated August 4, 2026 | 5709 Johnston Street, Lafayette, Louisiana | Conditional relationship | [15] |
| Commercial new construction, renovation, addition, and demolition building permit fee | rate per 1000 fair market value: 5; minimum fee: 100US dollars | Current fee schedule linked by Planning and Development page; accessed August 2026 | Lafayette Consolidated Government permitting | Context only | [16] [17] [3] |
| MN zoning-district sign standards | illuminated signs prohibited: yes; readerboards prohibited: yes; individual site freestanding max height ft: 4; individual site freestanding max area sqft: 20; individual site wall sign max area sqft: 8; integrated center freestanding max height ft: 6; integrated center freestanding max area sqft: 32mixed | Standalone sign-regulation extract labeled Lafayette Development Code, amended November 2024; current LCG link accessed August 2026 | MN zoning districts in the Lafayette Development Code | Conditional relationship | [18] [17] [4] |
| Floodplain development standards include Zero Net Fill, floodway No-Rise certification, one-foot freeboard for new nonresidential buildings, and substantial-improvement thresholds | zero net fill: yes; floodway no rise certificate: yes; new nonresidential floor or floodproofing above bfe ft: 1; substantial improvement value threshold percent over rolling 10 years: 50; addition area threshold percent of original structure: 50mixed | Current floodplain development rules accessed August 2026 | City of Lafayette and unincorporated Lafayette Parish | Context only | [19] [20] |
| I-49 Lafayette Connector remains in environmental review and pre-construction rather than active mainline construction | future segment miles: 5.5; environmental review status: in progress; estimated environmental review completion: 2027-10-01; dseis signed: yes; first interchange funding not yet fully resolved: yesmixed | Current permitting status accessed August 2026 | I-49 Lafayette Connector corridor | Context only | [21] [22] [23] [3] |
| Bertrand Drive Phase I subsurface communications work is underway; roadway construction is anticipated for Q1 2027 | phase 1 subsurface work underway: yes; noticeable construction movement from: 2026-06-01; roadway construction anticipated: 2027-Q1; estimated roadway construction duration months: 18; expected full completion: 2028-12-31mixed | Project schedule as of April 2026 | Bertrand Drive, Lafayette, Louisiana | Context only | [24] |
| LCG purchasing rules impose formal quote and public-bid processes above defined thresholds | supplies written quotes from: 2,501; supplies public bid from: 60,000; public works formal quotes from: 2,501; public works public bid from: 250,000; contractor license required for public work over: 50,000US dollars thresholds | Current procurement procedures accessed August 2026 | Lafayette Consolidated Government procurement | Conditional relationship | [25] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects whose applicability is established at the report’s current geographic and operating scope.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 72.39 after target-market demand +2.1 pts and referral ecosystem +0.3 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. Reports are checked for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability before publication.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 21, 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
Local evidence supporting this report
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.
- 1Franchise-to-city operating-fit model taxonomyInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Multi-city structural operating-fit research docket (I 192(2))Internal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: 2022 ESRI daytime population estimate for Lafayette city, Peer-reviewed Louisiana model identifies Lafayette among urban areas with modeled expansive-soil property-loss exposure and greater per-building loss propensity, and Q1 2026 Lafayette industrial market indicators
- 3Structural Constraints and Capital Hazards in Targeted Municipalities: A Forensic AuditInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Lafayette MSA mean wages and employment shares for franchise-relevant major occupation groups, Commercial new construction, renovation, addition, and demolition building permit fee, and I-49 Lafayette Connector remains in environmental review and pre-construction rather than active mainline construction
- 4Franchise data - remake - 181(20260821-181908).csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: University of Louisiana at Lafayette total enrollment in Fall 2025 and MN zoning-district sign standards
- 5QuickFacts: Lafayette city, Louisiana
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households and owner-occupied housing share, Health care and social assistance receipts in 2022, and Retail sales in 2022
- 62024 Annual Report
Used for: Two large health systems are among the largest Lafayette Parish employers and University and consolidated-government employer anchors
- 7Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis: Lafayette, Louisiana
Used for: Two large health systems are among the largest Lafayette Parish employers and University and consolidated-government employer anchors
- 8Occupational Employment and Wages in Lafayette - May 2025
Used for: Lafayette MSA mean wages and employment shares for franchise-relevant major occupation groups
- 9Lafayette, LA Economy at a Glance
Used for: Lafayette MSA unemployment rate in June 2026
- 10UL Lafayette welcomes its largest freshman class - ever
Used for: University of Louisiana at Lafayette total enrollment in Fall 2025
- 11Market Profile: Lafayette City, LA
Used for: 2022 ESRI daytime population estimate for Lafayette city
- 12Property Risk Assessment for Expansive Soils in Louisiana
Used for: Peer-reviewed Louisiana model identifies Lafayette among urban areas with modeled expansive-soil property-loss exposure and greater per-building loss propensity
- 13Q1 2026 Market Reports - Lafayette Industrial
Used for: Q1 2026 Lafayette industrial market indicators
- 14Lafayette Retail Space for Rent
Used for: Current asking-rate comparison among named Lafayette retail submarkets
- 15Former Starbucks on Johnston St for Lease
Used for: Active 1,822-square-foot former Starbucks suite at 5709 Johnston Street
- 16Community Development & Planning Fee Schedule
Used for: Commercial new construction, renovation, addition, and demolition building permit fee
- 17Planning and Development
Used for: Commercial new construction, renovation, addition, and demolition building permit fee and MN zoning-district sign standards
- 18Lafayette Development Code Article 5, Section 89-90 Signs
Used for: MN zoning-district sign standards
- 19Building within a Floodplain
Used for: Floodplain development standards include Zero Net Fill, floodway No-Rise certification, one-foot freeboard for new nonresidential buildings, and substantial-improvement thresholds
- 20Lafayette Parish Hazard Mitigation Plan
Used for: Two large health systems are among the largest Lafayette Parish employers, Professional and healthcare establishment counts in Lafayette Parish, and Floodplain development standards include Zero Net Fill, floodway No-Rise certification, one-foot freeboard for new nonresidential buildings, and substantial-improvement thresholds
- 21Lafayette Urban Section
Used for: I-49 Lafayette Connector remains in environmental review and pre-construction rather than active mainline construction
- 22I-49 Connector Reaches Major Milestone in Lafayette
Used for: I-49 Lafayette Connector remains in environmental review and pre-construction rather than active mainline construction
- 23Frequently Asked Questions
Used for: I-49 Lafayette Connector remains in environmental review and pre-construction rather than active mainline construction
- 24Bertrand Drive Revitalization Design Unveiled
Used for: Bertrand Drive Phase I subsurface communications work is underway; roadway construction is anticipated for Q1 2027
- 25Purchasing Guide
Used for: LCG purchasing rules impose formal quote and public-bid processes above defined thresholds
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.