70.4 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Mobile, Alabama
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Mobile, Alabama. Replacement and repair 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
20Sources used
12Primary sources
21Local 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
0.4 points average among 7 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 12 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Mobile, Alabama
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, and Rainbow International Restoration produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Replacement and repair demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 7 exposed concepts, adding 0.4 points on average. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing healthcare institutional service demand moved it from #1 to #13 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Mobile, Alabama
Large older-housing cohort supports repair and replacement service demand
This relationship affected 7 concepts and added 0.4 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Housing age distribution in Figure 6, with derived share built before 1980: built 2020 or later: units: 38, percent: 0; built 2010 to 2019: units: 3,485, percent: 3.8; built 2000 to 2009: units: 6,125, percent: 6.7; built 1990 to 1999: units: 7,383, percent: 8.1; built 1980 to 1989: units: 14,823, percent: 16.3; built 1970 to 1979: units: 19,825, percent: 21.8; built 1960 to 1969: units: 14,877, percent: 16.3; built 1950 to 1959: units: 13,035, percent: 14.3; additional values omitted housing units and percent. [5]
Mobile city recorded $3.125 billion in 2022 health care and social assistance receipts/revenue, while healthcare practitioners and technical occupations were 7.3% of Mobile MSA employment versus 6.3% nationally in May 2025.
The healthcare base supports institutional account demand for commercial cleaning, facility management, and institutional sales, but those sector metrics should not be converted into generalized walk-in, lunch-daypart, or referral demand without trade-area and channel-specific evidence. [4] [6] [17] [18] [19]
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. [6] [4] [17] [19]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Healthcare activity and institutions support institutional service demand1 modeled effect
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
Large older-housing cohort supports repair and replacement service demand1 modeled effect
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.0 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.95 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 | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.95 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#13
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.69 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 | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.69 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#14
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.3 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 |
| +0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.47 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 | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.47 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#6
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.5 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 |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.46 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.46 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#9
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.5 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 |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.46 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.46 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#10
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.4 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 |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.43 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.43 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#7
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.4 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 |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.39 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.39 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#11
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.36 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 | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.36 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#11
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.36 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 | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.36 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#9
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
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 |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.34 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 | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.34 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#13
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.2 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 | +0.20 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 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 | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.20 |
| 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
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
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 | +0.11 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 | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.11 |
| 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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#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: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not 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 | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#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 | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.95 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
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 6 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 13 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #2 to #11, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted6 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank13
What we observed
- Health Care And Social Assistance Receipts/revenue3,124,905 usd thousands
- Selected Occupational Employment Shares And Mean Hourly Wages In The Mobile Msa Versus The United Statesall occupations: mobile share percent: 100, us share percent: 100, mobile mean hourly usd: 27.97, us mean hourly usd: 33.54; healthcare practitioners and technical: mobile share percent: 7.3, us share percent: 6.3, mobile mean hourly usd: 44.62, us mean hourly usd: 52.26; healthcare support: mobile share percent: 4, us share percent: 5.1, mobile mean hourly usd: 16.53, us mean hourly usd: 19.62; food preparation and serving: mobile share percent: 8.7, us share percent: 8.8, mobile mean hourly usd: 14.18, us mean hourly usd: 17.86; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: mobile share percent: 2.8, us share percent: 2.9, mobile mean hourly usd: 16.29, us mean hourly usd: 19.66; construction and extraction: mobile share percent: 5.8, us share percent: 4.1, mobile mean hourly usd: 25.09, us mean hourly usd: 31.42; installation maintenance and repair: mobile share percent: 5.9, us share percent: 3.9, mobile mean hourly usd: 29.46, us mean hourly usd: 30.44; production: mobile share percent: 7.5, us share percent: 5.5, mobile mean hourly usd: 27.47, us mean hourly usd: 24.81; additional values omitted percent of employment and usd per hour
- University Of South Alabama Fall 2025 Enrollment And Health Related Academic Divisionstotal enrollment: 14,285; college of nursing: 4,419; covey college of allied health professions: 1,857; college of medicine: 360 students
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.0 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+0.7 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.4 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.4 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.1 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #6 to #13, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Housing Age Distribution In Figure 6, With Derived Share Built Before 1980built 2020 or later: units: 38, percent: 0; built 2010 to 2019: units: 3,485, percent: 3.8; built 2000 to 2009: units: 6,125, percent: 6.7; built 1990 to 1999: units: 7,383, percent: 8.1; built 1980 to 1989: units: 14,823, percent: 16.3; built 1970 to 1979: units: 19,825, percent: 21.8; built 1960 to 1969: units: 14,877, percent: 16.3; built 1950 to 1959: units: 13,035, percent: 14.3; additional values omitted housing units and percent
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.5 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.5 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.4 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.4 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.3 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Labor and staffing frictionNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Referral ecosystemNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideHighly sensitive · tested #1–#13
#2 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#14
#3 Rainbow International RestorationModerately sensitive · tested #3–#6
#4 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #1–#9
#5 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #2–#10
#6 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #3–#7
#7 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #4–#11
#8 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #3–#11
#9 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #4–#9
#10 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #5–#13
#11 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #7–#12
#12 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #6–#12
#13 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13
#14 Workout AnytimeModerately sensitive · tested #12–#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: [4] [6] [17] [18] [19] [15] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [1] [20] [12]Competitive environment: [7] [4] [8] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [6] [7] [2] [17] [18]Transportation, routing, and parking: [10] [9] [15] [8] [2]Real estate and site feasibility: [8] [11] [12] [13] [1] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [16] [7] [4] [17] [18] [19]Referral ecosystem: [4] [17] [18] [19] [16] [3]Territory quality: [8] [13] [12] [11] [10] [9] [20]Regulatory and operating friction: [11] [12] [13] [14] [16] [3] [2]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand |
|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +1.0 pts | — |
| #2 Jan-Pro International | +0.7 pts | — |
| #3 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.1 pts | +0.3 pts |
| #4 ZOOM DRAIN | — | +0.5 pts |
| #5 Mr. Rooter | — | +0.5 pts |
| #6 Aire Serv | — | +0.4 pts |
| #7 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.4 pts |
| #8 FASTSIGNS | +0.4 pts | — |
| #9 HomeSmiles | +0.4 pts | — |
| #10 PuroClean | — | +0.3 pts |
| #11 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | +0.2 pts |
| #12 ActionCOACH | +0.1 pts | — |
| #13 Tiger Adjusters | — | — |
| #14 Workout Anytime | — | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, Rainbow International Restoration 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 City Wide, Jan-Pro International, ZOOM DRAIN; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Mobile, Alabama
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.4Limited comparison: Restoration franchise opportunities assessed in Mobile, Alabama
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.3 to 70.5. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.5. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.3 points on average among the affected concepts.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.1-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.3–70.5
- Category average
- 70.4
Rainbow International Restoration70.5
PuroClean70.3
Metric registry
The 21 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 | 200,824people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census measures | Mobile city, Alabama | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | -2.9percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census measures | Mobile city, Alabama | Context only | [4] |
| Estimated households | 84,639households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census measures | Mobile city, Alabama | Context only | [4] |
| City retail and accommodation/food-service sales | retail sales usd thousands: 5,393,569; accommodation and food services sales usd thousands: 763,042usd thousands | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census measures | Mobile city, Alabama | Context only | [4] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue | 3,124,905usd thousands | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census measures | Mobile city, Alabama | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Transportation and warehousing receipts/revenue | 1,304,951usd thousands | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census measures | Mobile city, Alabama | Context only | [4] |
| Housing age distribution in Figure 6, with derived share built before 1980 | built 2020 or later: units: 38, percent: 0; built 2010 to 2019: units: 3,485, percent: 3.8; built 2000 to 2009: units: 6,125, percent: 6.7; built 1990 to 1999: units: 7,383, percent: 8.1; built 1980 to 1989: units: 14,823, percent: 16.3; built 1970 to 1979: units: 19,825, percent: 21.8; built 1960 to 1969: units: 14,877, percent: 16.3; built 1950 to 1959: units: 13,035, percent: 14.3; additional values omittedhousing units and percent | Primarily 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-year estimates and 2021 housing conditions | Mobile city geography represented by 2017-2021 ACS | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Selected occupational employment shares and mean hourly wages in the Mobile MSA versus the United States | all occupations: mobile share percent: 100, us share percent: 100, mobile mean hourly usd: 27.97, us mean hourly usd: 33.54; healthcare practitioners and technical: mobile share percent: 7.3, us share percent: 6.3, mobile mean hourly usd: 44.62, us mean hourly usd: 52.26; healthcare support: mobile share percent: 4, us share percent: 5.1, mobile mean hourly usd: 16.53, us mean hourly usd: 19.62; food preparation and serving: mobile share percent: 8.7, us share percent: 8.8, mobile mean hourly usd: 14.18, us mean hourly usd: 17.86; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: mobile share percent: 2.8, us share percent: 2.9, mobile mean hourly usd: 16.29, us mean hourly usd: 19.66; construction and extraction: mobile share percent: 5.8, us share percent: 4.1, mobile mean hourly usd: 25.09, us mean hourly usd: 31.42; installation maintenance and repair: mobile share percent: 5.9, us share percent: 3.9, mobile mean hourly usd: 29.46, us mean hourly usd: 30.44; production: mobile share percent: 7.5, us share percent: 5.5, mobile mean hourly usd: 27.47, us mean hourly usd: 24.81; additional values omittedpercent of employment and usd per hour | May 2025 | Mobile, AL MSA (Mobile County) | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Mobile Chamber member survey responses on workforce and competition barriers | lack of skilled workforce biggest local barrier percent: 53; workforce shortages or wage inflation biggest local risk percent: 27; competition from other local businesses biggest local barrier percent: 5percent of survey responses | Business conditions and hiring during 2025; expectations and risks for 2026 | Mobile Chamber member respondents | Context only | [7] |
| Mobile industrial market fundamentals in Q4 2025 | total inventory sqft: 52,802,051; available sqft: 3,217,244; overall vacancy percent: 6.1; overall asking rate usd per sqft: 8.68; under construction sqft: 515,000; net absorption prior four quarters sqft: -644,314market metrics | Fourth quarter 2025 and prior-four-quarter market activity | Colliers Mobile industrial market | Supports research conclusion | [8] |
| Selected Mobile-city industrial submarket vacancy and asking-rate variation | CBD: vacancy percent: 0.6, asking rate usd per sqft: 8.67, available sqft: 15,484; Midtown: vacancy percent: 3, asking rate usd per sqft: 8.41, available sqft: 221,433; Northeast Mobile: vacancy percent: 7.4, asking rate usd per sqft: 7.3, available sqft: 473,172; West Mobile: vacancy percent: 5.6, asking rate usd per sqft: 9.56, available sqft: 25,142percent usd per sqft and available sqft | Fourth quarter 2025 and prior-four-quarter market activity | Selected Mobile industrial submarkets | Conditional relationship | [8] |
| Current I-10 Mobile River/Bayway corridor congestion and safety baseline | rear end crashes 2018 2022: 1,429; rear end share of project segment crashes percent: 66; existing bayway level of service: E, F; ems delay hours annually range: 11, 23; current bayway turnarounds for ems: 1; documented constraints: congestion, limited shoulders, inadequate capacity, current geometry below current design standardscorridor metrics and conditions | Crash history 2018-2022 and baseline transportation conditions used for FY2025-26 grant application | I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway project limits | Conditional relationship | [10] |
| Mobile River Bridge and Bayway Phase One status and projected tolling timeline | phase one estimated cost usd: 3,200,000,000; phase one scope: new six lane cable stayed bridge, restripe existing bayway to six lanes, major interchange intersection and flow improvements; construction status as of source: advancing toward construction; expected to begin before end of 2026; new bridge opening projection: approximately 2031; tolls before new bridge opens: no; free routes planned to remain free: Causeway, Wallace Tunnel, Bankhead Tunnel, Africatown Bridge; proposed standard vehicle toll options usd: algo pass per trip: 3, compatible transponder per trip: 7.7, unlimited monthly pass: 60project status cost schedule and proposed tolls | Project status as of July 2026 | I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway Phase One | Conditional relationship | [9] |
| Historic-district and Government Street sign controls | maximum signage square feet: 64; multi tenant general maximum square feet: 64; internally illuminated back lit plastic signs prohibited: yes; monument sign maximum height feet: 5; application fee usd: 15rules thresholds and fee | Current application and design rules accessed August 2026 | Mobile historic districts and Government Street | Conditional relationship | [11] |
| Flood-zone development permit thresholds and documentation gates | existing building work value threshold percent: 50; over threshold requires elevation certificate: yes; at or below threshold requires 50 percent rule packet: yes; new construction and substantial improvement must list site flood zones and bfe: yes; v zone certification required when applicable: yes; nonresidential floodproofing plan and certificate required when floodproofed: yesproject and property gates | Permit requirements revised December 2022; accessed August 2026 | City of Mobile permitting jurisdiction | Supports research conclusion | [12] |
| City GIS serves parcel-area flood-zone polygons and related SFHA/BFE attributes | mapped zone examples: A, AE, VE, X-Shaded; key fields: zone name, zone desc, sfha tf, static bfe; mapping is property specific: yesmapped geospatial attributes | Flood Zones - Effective June 5th 2020 layer served by City GIS; accessed August 2026 | City of Mobile GIS flood-zone layer | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| MAWSS grease-management requirements for food-service facilities | grease ordinance enforced: yes; covered facilities: restaurants, food handling facilities; required action: proper disposal of grease; employee training required: Mobile County Health Department training on proper handling and disposal of greasecompliance requirements | Current program guidance accessed August 2026 | MAWSS food-service pretreatment program | Context only | [14] |
| Port of Mobile new container berth project | project cost usd: 131,000,000; new berth length feet: 1,300; berth capacity increase percent: 50; construction expected start year: 2,026; target duration months after groundbreaking: 24; annual berth capacity after completion teu: 1,400,000project cost capacity and schedule | Project announcement October 2025; construction expected in 2026 with 24-month target | Port of Mobile container terminal | Context only | [15] |
| Alabama Port Authority purchasing thresholds | small purchase usd: minimum: 1, maximum: 49,999.99; secure quotes usd: minimum: 50,000, maximum: 99,999.99; bid usd: minimum: 100,000; professional services public competition usd minimum: 100,000usd thresholds | Policy authorized February 24, 2026 | Alabama Port Authority | Context only | [16] |
| Infirmary Health first-party pages report approximately 6,400 to 7,000 employees | main careers page approximate employees: 6,400; careers portal about us approximate employees: 7,000employees approximate first party range | Current employer description accessed August 2026 | Infirmary Health, headquartered in Mobile | Used in scoring | [17] [18] |
| University of South Alabama fall 2025 enrollment and health-related academic divisions | total enrollment: 14,285; college of nursing: 4,419; covey college of allied health professions: 1,857; college of medicine: 360students | Fall 2025 census enrollment | University of South Alabama, Mobile | Used in scoring | [19] |
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 70.95 after target-market demand +1.0 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 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
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.
- 1Supplied structural operating-fit research docket (Mobile section)Internal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Forensic Audit of Municipal Deal-Killers and Structural ConstraintsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - modInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4QuickFacts: Mobile city, Alabama
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Estimated households, City retail and accommodation/food-service sales, and Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue
- 5City of Mobile Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Used for: Housing age distribution in Figure 6, with derived share built before 1980
- 6Occupational Employment and Wages in Mobile, AL — May 2025
Used for: Selected occupational employment shares and mean hourly wages in the Mobile MSA versus the United States
- 72026 Mobile Area Economic Outlook Survey Results
Used for: Mobile Chamber member survey responses on workforce and competition barriers
- 8Q4 2025 Mobile Industrial
Used for: Mobile industrial market fundamentals in Q4 2025 and Selected Mobile-city industrial submarket vacancy and asking-rate variation
- 9Mobile River Bridge and Bayway Project advances toward construction
Used for: Mobile River Bridge and Bayway Phase One status and projected tolling timeline
- 10FY25-26 Outcome Criteria Narrative — I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway
Used for: Current I-10 Mobile River/Bayway corridor congestion and safety baseline
- 11Architectural Review Board Application for Sign Permits in Mobile’s Historic Districts
Used for: Historic-district and Government Street sign controls
- 12Flood Zone Development Permit — City of Mobile
Used for: Flood-zone development permit thresholds and documentation gates
- 13City of Mobile GIS — Flood Zones - Effective June 5th 2020
Used for: City GIS serves parcel-area flood-zone polygons and related SFHA/BFE attributes
- 14Pretreatment Program — Grease Management
Used for: MAWSS grease-management requirements for food-service facilities
- 15Alabama Port Authority, APM Terminals Advance Plans for New Berth
Used for: Port of Mobile new container berth project
- 16Alabama State Port Authority Procurement Policy
Used for: Alabama Port Authority purchasing thresholds
- 17Careers
Used for: Infirmary Health first-party pages report approximately 6,400 to 7,000 employees
- 18About Us — Infirmary Health Careers Portal
Used for: Infirmary Health first-party pages report approximately 6,400 to 7,000 employees
- 19Table 3.1 Summary Enrollment Profile, Fall Semester 2025
Used for: University of South Alabama fall 2025 enrollment and health-related academic divisions
- 20
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.