70.7 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in St. Petersburg, Florida
We compared 14 franchise concepts for St. Petersburg, Florida. Household service demand was a leading positive mechanism. Legacy-system service complexity was a leading operating constraint.
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
11Primary sources
23Local 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 8 affected concepts
0.2 points average reduction among 6 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 12 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for St. Petersburg, Florida
HomeSmiles, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, and ZOOM DRAIN produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Household service demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 8 exposed concepts, adding 0.9 points on average. One important asymmetry was that the same local condition supported replacement and repair demand while also creating legacy-system service complexity. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors was especially relationship-sensitive: removing household service demand moved it from #2 to #9 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 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.3 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsReferral ecosystem | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsReferral ecosystem | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in St. Petersburg, Florida
Current housing-unit production supports incremental household-service demand
This relationship affected 8 concepts and added 0.9 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Change in local housing unit production from 2024 to 2025: 40 percent increase. [6]
Large pre-1960 building share supports replacement-service demand and legacy-system complexity
The same local condition created complementary effects: replacement and repair demand supported exposed concepts while legacy-system service complexity constrained others. [8]
St. Petersburg has FEMA-regulated flood areas and a separate City stormwater floodplain based on localized rainfall modeling.
Flood exposure can raise property-level permitting, resilience, insurance, and continuity burdens while also creating demand for restoration and repair services. The current production taxonomy does not contain a direct flood-risk modifier, so the physical-risk mechanism is preserved for diligence and taxonomy review rather than scored through an unrelated code. [12] [2] [3] [13] [4]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Current housing-unit production supports incremental household-service demand1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
Large pre-1960 building share supports replacement-service demand and legacy-system complexity2 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 1 source
- Share of all St. Petersburg buildings built before 1960 in the 2024 preservation study: 46 percent of buildings [8]
- Share of small-scale multi-family buildings with two to eight units built before 1960: 81 percent of small multifamily buildings [8]
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Legacy-system service complexityLabor and staffing friction
Innovation District concentration supports professional and institutional relationship density1 modeled effect
Professional and institutional relationship densityReferral ecosystem
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 alignment71.8
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.1 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 |
| +1.1 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.78 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.1 |
| 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 | +0.7 |
| 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 | 71.78 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.8 |
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
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#5
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.4
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +1.3 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.3 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.43 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
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.43 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- 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 +1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#9
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.4
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.42 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| 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 | +0.5 |
| 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 | 71.42 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- 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 +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#6
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.06 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.06 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.1 |
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
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#11
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.02 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.02 |
| 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
- #4–#10
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +0.9 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 |
| +0.9 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.91 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | 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 | +0.9 |
| 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 | 70.91 |
| 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
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#13
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.90 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| 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 | 70.90 |
| 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
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#12
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.8 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 |
| +0.8 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | 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 | +0.8 |
| 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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#11
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.6 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 |
| +0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.73 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| 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 | +0.6 |
| 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 | 70.73 |
| 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
- Referral ecosystem +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#10
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.6 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 |
| +0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.73 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| 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 | +0.6 |
| 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 | 70.73 |
| 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
- Referral ecosystem +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#11
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.71 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | 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 | 70.71 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- 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
- #7–#14
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
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 |
| Net local movement | +0.39 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
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | 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 | +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 | 70.39 |
| 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
- Referral ecosystem +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.34 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 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | 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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +0.2 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 |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.22 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | 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 | +0.2 |
| 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 | 70.22 |
| 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
- Referral ecosystem +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated HomeSmiles
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.1 |
| 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 | +0.7 |
| 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 | 71.78 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectPositive local support
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 14 concepts changed position. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors moved from #2 to #10, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.9 pts
Average across all concepts+0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank14
What we observed
- Net Annual Increase In Local Housing Units Produced In 20252,012 housing units
- Change In Local Housing Unit Production From 2024 To 202540 percent increase
- Housing Opportunities For All Multi Family Units Completed And In Progresscompleted units: 1,091; in progress units: 2,452 housing units
Concepts helped most
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+1.3 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.1 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+1.0 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+1.0 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.9 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, 7 concepts changed position. Mr. Rooter moved from #5 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.2 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank7
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.3 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.3 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.2 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.2 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.2 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 6 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 4 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #3 to #2, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted6 of 14
Average among affected-0.2 pts
Average across all concepts-0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank4
Concepts challenged most
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-0.2 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.2 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.2 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.2 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.1 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 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. City Wide moved from #6 to #13, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.6 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- The 560 Acre Innovation District Contains A Concentrated Mix Of Hospitals, A University Campus, Marine Research, Technology, Business Incubator, Port, Airport, Museum, And Research Organizationsdistrict area acres: 560; named anchor examples: Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital, Orlando Health Bayfront Hospital, University of South Florida St. Petersburg, Florida Institute of Oceanography, Maritime and Defense Technology Hub institutional cluster profile
- Innovation District Reported Jobs Supported Over Its First Decade10,000 jobs supported more than
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.9 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.8 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.7 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.6 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.6 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo 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 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #1–#5
#2 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #1–#9
#3 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #2–#6
#4 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #3–#11
#5 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #4–#10
#6 City WideHighly sensitive · tested #1–#13
#7 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #6–#12
#8 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #2–#11
#9 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #3–#10
#10 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #4–#11
#11 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #7–#14
#12 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #7–#12
#13 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13
#14 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #8–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [5] [6] [8] [18] [19] [2] [4]Property replacement-cycle demand: [8] [7] [13] [2]Competitive environment: [20] [5] [18] [2] [4]Labor and staffing friction: [9] [8] [3] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [11] [3] [4]Real estate and site feasibility: [10] [12] [13] [14] [2] [4]Sales and customer acquisition: [20] [18] [19] [5] [4]Referral ecosystem: [18] [19] [5] [4]Territory quality: [12] [13] [15] [16] [14] [10] [11] [4]Regulatory and operating friction: [13] [12] [14] [15] [16] [17] [7] [3] [4]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 HomeSmiles | +1.1 pts | — | — | +0.7 pts |
| #2 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +1.3 pts | +0.1 pts | — | — |
| #3 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.8 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.2 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #4 Aire Serv | +1.0 pts | +0.2 pts | -0.2 pts | — |
| #5 Mr. Rooter | +1.0 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.2 pts | — |
| #6 City Wide | — | — | — | +0.9 pts |
| #7 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.9 pts | +0.2 pts | -0.2 pts | — |
| #8 ActionCOACH | — | — | — | +0.8 pts |
| #9 PuroClean | — | +0.2 pts | -0.1 pts | +0.6 pts |
| #10 Rainbow International Restoration | — | +0.2 pts | -0.1 pts | +0.6 pts |
| #11 Workout Anytime | +0.7 pts | — | — | — |
| #12 FASTSIGNS | — | — | — | +0.4 pts |
| #13 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | — | — | — |
| #14 Jan-Pro International | — | — | — | +0.2 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
HomeSmiles, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, ZOOM DRAIN led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to labor and staffing friction. 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 HomeSmiles, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, ZOOM DRAIN; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in St. Petersburg, Florida
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.7Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in St. Petersburg, Florida
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.7 to 70.7. PuroClean ranked highest at 70.7. Referral ecosystem added 0.6 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.1 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.0-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.7–70.7
- Category average
- 70.7
PuroClean70.7
Rainbow International Restoration70.7
Metric registry
The 23 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 | 264,033people | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics | St | Context only | [5] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 2.2percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics | St | Context only | [5] |
| Households in the 2020-2024 QuickFacts period | 119,244households | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics | St | Context only | [5] |
| Net annual increase in local housing units produced in 2025 | 2,012housing units | Housing production through 2025 and program status reported June 2026 | St | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Change in local housing unit production from 2024 to 2025 | 40percent increase | Housing production through 2025 and program status reported June 2026 | St | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Housing Opportunities for All multi-family units completed and in progress | completed units: 1,091; in progress units: 2,452housing units | Housing production through 2025 and program status reported June 2026 | St | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Share of all St. Petersburg buildings built before 1960 in the 2024 preservation study | 46percent of buildings | Study completed April 2024; building-stock and preservation data compiled for the study | St | Supports modeled relationship | [8] |
| Share of small-scale multi-family buildings with two to eight units built before 1960 | 81percent of small multifamily buildings | Study completed April 2024; building-stock and preservation data compiled for the study | St | Supports modeled relationship | [8] |
| Much of the City's water-related infrastructure was developed from 1930 to 1980 and has reached or exceeded its design lifespan | primary development period: 1930-1980; city investment since 2015 usd approx: 2,000,000,000mixed | Current plan page accessed August 2026; infrastructure development period 1930-1980 and investment since 2015 | St | Context only | [7] [2] |
| Selected major occupational-group mean hourly wages in the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA | all occupations: 31.96; building and grounds cleaning: 18.07; food preparation and serving: 18.23; office and administrative support: 23.93; construction and extraction: 26.69; installation maintenance and repair: 27.57; transportation and material moving: 21.28usd per hour mean | May 2025 | Tampa-St | Context only | [9] |
| Gateway-Mid Pinellas industrial market statistics in Q2 2026 | inventory sqft: 26,420,212; overall vacant sqft: 1,968,503; overall vacancy percent: 7.5; warehouse distribution vacancy percent: 11.4; ytd leasing activity sqft: 551,181; under construction sqft: 180,400; ytd construction completions sqft: 331,803; overall weighted net asking rent usd psf year: 11.99mixed | Q2 2026 | Gateway-Mid Pinellas | Conditional relationship | [10] |
| Pinellas County industrial market overall vacancy in Q2 2026 | 6.2percent vacancy | Q2 2026 | Pinellas County, Florida | Context only | [10] |
| Gateway Logistics Center Building D completed in Q2 2026 without a major tenant listed | 119,481square feet | Q2 2026 | Gateway Logistics Center - Building D, Gateway-Mid Pinellas | Context only | [10] |
| Active I-275 widening project from north of 38th Avenue N to north of 4th Street N | project start: 2025-08-11; length miles: 7.5; construction cost usd: 340,000,000; estimated completion: late 2030; interchange modifications: 38th Avenue N, 54th Avenue N, Gandy Boulevard, Roosevelt Boulevardmixed | Active construction; factsheet updated January 27, 2026 | I-275 from north of 38th Avenue N to north of 4th Street N in St | Conditional relationship | [11] |
| City stormwater floodplain identifies rainfall-flood risk not fully captured by FEMA maps | annual probability threshold percent: 1; includes areas outside fema floodplains: yesmapped risk definition | Current floodplain guidance accessed August 2026 | City of St | Conditional relationship | [12] [2] [3] |
| Substantial-improvement and substantial-damage threshold for buildings in the Special Flood Hazard Area | threshold percent of pre damage market value: 49; full compliance triggered at or above threshold: yes; storm repair fee waiver status: ended 2025-07-31regulatory threshold | Current post-storm permitting guidance accessed August 2026 | Buildings in St | Conditional relationship | [13] [4] |
| Commercial equipment cannot be parked in residential districts unless stored in a completely enclosed building | yesrule applies | Current code-enforcement guidance accessed August 2026 | St | Context only | [14] [4] |
| Locally designated historic properties are subject to review of proposed changes through Certificates of Appropriateness | local designation required: yes; coa review for proposed changes: yespermit gate | Current historic-preservation guidance accessed August 2026 | Individually designated local landmarks and properties in St | Conditional relationship | [15] |
| Mirror Lake Historic District became St. Petersburg's eleventh local historic district | adoption date: 2024-12-12; ordinance: 135-HL; exterior modification permits require coa: yesdesignation record | Local designation adopted December 12, 2024; current permit guidance accessed August 2026 | Mirror Lake Local Historic District | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| New signs generally require permits and must comply with applicable code and design requirements | permit generally required: yes; exemptions exist: yes; review goal business days: 12permit requirement | Latest code version displayed August 2026 | St | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| The 560-acre Innovation District contains a concentrated mix of hospitals, a university campus, marine research, technology, business-incubator, port, airport, museum, and research organizations | district area acres: 560; named anchor examples: Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital, Orlando Health Bayfront Hospital, University of South Florida St. Petersburg, Florida Institute of Oceanography, Maritime and Defense Technology Hubinstitutional cluster profile | Ten-year district milestone through 2026 | St | Used in scoring | [18] [19] |
| Innovation District-reported jobs supported over its first decade | 10,000jobs supported more than | Ten-year district milestone through 2026 | St | Used in scoring | [18] [19] |
| County Business Patterns provides annual employer-establishment data and ZIP Code Business Patterns provides ZIP-level business data, but a target franchise category and territory are required to define the relevant competitor set | annual series: yes; zip level series: yes; category and territory required for relevant competitor count: yesdata capability | Annual County Business Patterns and ZIP Code Business Patterns series available through the current reference year | County Business Patterns and ZIP Code Business Patterns | Context only | [20] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects that apply without an unresolved site, territory, customer, or project gate.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, HomeSmiles reached 71.78 after target-market demand +1.1 pts and referral ecosystem +0.7 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Franchise-to-city operating-fit scoring modelInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Multi-city structural-friction research docketInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Much of the City's water-related infrastructure was developed from 1930 to 1980 and has reached or exceeded its design lifespan and City stormwater floodplain identifies rainfall-flood risk not fully captured by FEMA maps
- 3Forensic Jurisdictional Audit: Structural Constraints and Hidden Enterprise CostsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: City stormwater floodplain identifies rainfall-flood risk not fully captured by FEMA maps
- 4Supplied neighborhood-level franchise research tableInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Substantial-improvement and substantial-damage threshold for buildings in the Special Flood Hazard Area and Commercial equipment cannot be parked in residential districts unless stored in a completely enclosed building
- 5QuickFacts: St. Petersburg city, Florida
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, and Households in the 2020-2024 QuickFacts period
- 6City of St. Petersburg Exceeds Goals for Creating and Preserving 3,200 Multi-Family Units at Halfway Point of 10-Year Housing Opportunities for All Plan
Used for: Net annual increase in local housing units produced in 2025, Change in local housing unit production from 2024 to 2025, and Housing Opportunities for All multi-family units completed and in progress
- 7St. Pete Water Plan
Used for: Much of the City's water-related infrastructure was developed from 1930 to 1980 and has reached or exceeded its design lifespan
- 8Keeping the Vibe Alive: The Impact of Historic Preservation in St. Petersburg
Used for: Share of all St. Petersburg buildings built before 1960 in the 2024 preservation study and Share of small-scale multi-family buildings with two to eight units built before 1960
- 9Occupational Employment and Wages in Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL — May 2025
Used for: Selected major occupational-group mean hourly wages in the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA
- 10Tampa Bay Industrial MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Gateway-Mid Pinellas industrial market statistics in Q2 2026, Pinellas County industrial market overall vacancy in Q2 2026, and Gateway Logistics Center Building D completed in Q2 2026 without a major tenant listed
- 11I-275 Widening from north of 38th Avenue N to north of 4th Street N
Used for: Active I-275 widening project from north of 38th Avenue N to north of 4th Street N
- 12Flooding
Used for: City stormwater floodplain identifies rainfall-flood risk not fully captured by FEMA maps
- 13The 49% Rule: Substantial Damage and Substantial Improvement
Used for: Substantial-improvement and substantial-damage threshold for buildings in the Special Flood Hazard Area
- 14Property Maintenance: Avoiding Common Violations
Used for: Commercial equipment cannot be parked in residential districts unless stored in a completely enclosed building
- 15Historic Preservation
Used for: Locally designated historic properties are subject to review of proposed changes through Certificates of Appropriateness
- 16Mirror Lake Local Historic District
Used for: Mirror Lake Historic District became St. Petersburg's eleventh local historic district
- 17St. Petersburg Code of Ordinances § 16.40.120.3 and § 16.70.030.1.9: Sign requirements and sign permits
Used for: New signs generally require permits and must comply with applicable code and design requirements
- 18St. Petersburg Innovation District Turns 10!
Used for: The 560-acre Innovation District contains a concentrated mix of hospitals, a university campus, marine research, technology, business-incubator, port, airport, museum, and research organizations and Innovation District-reported jobs supported over its first decade
- 19St Pete Innovation District celebrates 10 years, looks to future
Used for: The 560-acre Innovation District contains a concentrated mix of hospitals, a university campus, marine research, technology, business-incubator, port, airport, museum, and research organizations and Innovation District-reported jobs supported over its first decade
- 20County Business Patterns Data
Used for: County Business Patterns provides annual employer-establishment data and ZIP Code Business Patterns provides ZIP-level business data, but a target franchise category and territory are required to define the relevant competitor set
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.