70.6 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Tampa, Florida
We ranked 14 franchise concepts for Tampa, Florida using local demand, labor, transportation, real estate, regulation, and source-backed evidence.
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
19Sources used
15Primary sources
25Local 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
0.6 points average among 11 affected concepts
0.2 points average reduction among 9 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 8 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Tampa, Florida
Our Tampa, Florida analysis favored concepts whose operating requirements matched the city’s strongest service-demand conditions without depending too heavily on inexpensive labor, easy routing, or low-cost commercial space. City Wide, ActionCOACH, and FASTSIGNS produced the three highest modeled alignment scores in the evaluated set. Target-market demand was the strongest positive factor: it materially affected 11 concepts and added 0.6 points on average among them. Labor and staffing friction was the broadest negative pressure, reducing the 9 exposed concepts by 0.2 points on average. The result is not that the highest-ranked brand is universally better. It means that, under the documented city assumptions and the operating profiles available to us, its local advantages outweighed its modeled constraints more effectively. Territory boundaries, candidate capabilities, capital structure, franchise economics, current FDD disclosures, and local franchisee validation remain outside this ranking and can materially change the decision.
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 management | 72.2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coaching | 71.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics | 71.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning | 71.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services | 71.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsReferral ecosystem | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Rainbow International RestorationRestoration | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | PuroCleanRestoration | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjusting | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
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: [1] [2] [3] [5] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [13]Property replacement-cycle demand: [1] [2] [12] [19]Competitive environment: [5] [1] [8] [16]Labor and staffing friction: [6] [7] [11] [13] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [14] [15] [9] [10]Real estate and site feasibility: [16] [2] [4] [17] [18] [19]Sales and customer acquisition: [5] [1] [8]Referral ecosystem: [11] [12] [13] [9] [10] [8] [5]Territory quality: [1] [2] [8] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]Regulatory and operating friction: [4] [17] [18] [19] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +1.6 pts | — | — | +0.7 pts |
| #2 ActionCOACH | +1.2 pts | — | — | +0.6 pts |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +1.4 pts | — | -0.1 pts | +0.3 pts |
| #4 Jan-Pro International | +1.4 pts | — | — | +0.2 pts |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +0.8 pts | — | -0.1 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #6 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.3 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.3 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #7 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.1 pts | +0.1 pts | — | +0.4 pts |
| #8 Rainbow International Restoration | — | +0.2 pts | -0.1 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #9 PuroClean | — | +0.2 pts | -0.1 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #10 Tiger Adjusters | +0.2 pts | — | -0.1 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #11 Mr. Rooter | +0.2 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.3 pts | +0.2 pts |
| #12 Aire Serv | +0.2 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.3 pts | — |
| #13 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.3 pts | -0.3 pts | +0.1 pts |
| #14 Workout Anytime | -0.5 pts | — | — | — |
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 WideStable · tested #1–#1
#2 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #2–#4
#3 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #3–#9
#4 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#10
#5 HomeSmilesStable · tested #5–#6
#6 ZOOM DRAINModerately sensitive · tested #6–#8
#7 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #5–#10
#8 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #3–#11
#9 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #4–#12
#10 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #6–#11
#11 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #7–#11
#12 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #8–#14
#13 Mister Sparky ElectricStable · tested #12–#13
#14 Workout AnytimeStable · tested #13–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 72.25 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.2 |
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.
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, ActionCOACH, FASTSIGNS 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 FASTSIGNS, Jan-Pro International, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
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.
Operating environment53Mixed or model dependent
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 11 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 13 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #4 to #11, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted11 of 14
Average among affected+0.6 pts
Average across all concepts+0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank13
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.6 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+1.4 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.4 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+1.2 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.8 pts
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.5 pts
Operating environment50Mixed 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.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 4 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #6 to #8, 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 rank4
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.3 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.3 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.3 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.3 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.2 pts
Operating environment49Researched; no material local effect
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 9 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 4 concepts changed position. PuroClean moved from #9 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted9 of 14
Average among affected-0.2 pts
Average across all concepts-0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank4
Concepts challenged most
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-0.3 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.3 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.3 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.3 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.1 pts
Operating environment52Mixed or model dependent
Referral ecosystem
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 12 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. Mr. Rooter moved from #11 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted12 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank7
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.7 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.6 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.5 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.5 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
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Tampa, Florida
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.6Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Tampa, Florida
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.6 to 70.6. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.6. Referral ecosystem added 0.5 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
- 70.6–70.6
- Category average
- 70.6
Rainbow International Restoration70.6
PuroClean70.6
Compare all assessed concepts
Explore the complete score calculations
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see how each factor was treated and the single next check most capable of changing the result.
#1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.2
City Wide
Increase +1.6 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
How we scored this concept
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 | +1.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 72.25 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.2 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#1
Most important next check
How many qualified facility and property-management accounts must be reachable for City Wide to support its local contract pipeline?
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.8
ActionCOACH
Increase +1.2 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
How we scored this concept
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 71.82 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#4
Most important next check
Which business-owner segments are expected to produce the most repeatable coaching demand for ActionCOACH?
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.6
FASTSIGNS
Increase +1.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | +1.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.62 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#9
Most important next check
Which local customer verticals are expected to generate repeat signage and graphics work for FASTSIGNS?
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.5
Jan-Pro International
Increase +1.4 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | +1.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 71.53 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#10
Most important next check
What concentration of recurring commercial accounts is required for Jan-Pro International to build an efficient local book of business?
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.3
HomeSmiles
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
How we scored this concept
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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 71.25 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#6
Most important next check
How many qualified facility and property-management accounts must be reachable for HomeSmiles to support its local contract pipeline?
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
ZOOM DRAIN
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.70 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#8
Most important next check
Which territory boundaries allow ZOOM DRAIN to meet response-time expectations without excessive cross-city travel?
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | +0.1 |
| 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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.58 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#10
Most important next check
Which transaction corridors and referral markets would define Pillar To Post Home Inspectors's practical inspection territory?
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
Rainbow International Restoration
Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.57 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#11
Most important next check
Which territory boundaries allow Rainbow International Restoration to meet response-time expectations without excessive cross-city travel?
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
PuroClean
Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.57 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#12
Most important next check
Which territory boundaries allow PuroClean to meet response-time expectations without excessive cross-city travel?
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
Tiger Adjusters
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.50 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#11
Most important next check
Which ZIP codes and appointment density assumptions define Tiger Adjusters's practical service territory?
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
Mr. Rooter
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.39 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#11
Most important next check
Which ZIP codes and appointment density assumptions define Mr. Rooter's practical service territory?
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Aire Serv
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 70.21 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#14
Most important next check
Which ZIP codes and appointment density assumptions define Aire Serv's practical service territory?
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
How we scored this concept
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 | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.1 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.06 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#13
Most important next check
Which ZIP codes and appointment density assumptions define Mister Sparky Electric's practical service territory?
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
Workout Anytime
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.5 pts Target-market demand
Rank sensitivity: Stable
How we scored this concept
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 | -0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 69.46 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.5 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #13–#14
Most important next check
What trade-area boundary and population base would Workout Anytime use to evaluate the proposed location?
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Metric registry
The 25 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry exposes the raw value, period, geography, factor mapping, and source for every public metric used in the city research.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | How used | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 413,554people | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 selected characteristics | Tampa, Florida | Evidence for Target-market demand, Territory quality | [1] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 7.3percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 selected characteristics | Tampa, Florida | Evidence for Target-market demand | [1] |
| Households and owner-occupied housing share | households: 166,278; owner occupied housing share: 50.3households and percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 selected characteristics | Tampa, Florida | Evidence for Target-market demand, Property replacement-cycle demand | [1] |
| Estimated shortage of affordable and available rental units for households earning up to 50 percent of area median income | 26,153rental units | Primarily 2021-2023, with residential permitting through 2022 and projections through 2050 | Tampa, Florida renter market | Evidence for Target-market demand, Labor and staffing friction | [2] |
| Median combined housing and transportation cost share and planning-district range | citywide: 53; minimum: 40; minimum district: New Tampa; maximum: 66; maximum district: USF Institutionalpercent of household income | Primarily 2021-2023, with residential permitting through 2022 and projections through 2050 | City of Tampa planning districts | Evidence for Target-market demand, Territory quality | [2] |
| Permitted residential units from 2018 through 2022 | total: 16,980; single family: 5,873; duplex: 73; tri quad: 140; multifamily: 10,894permitted housing units | Primarily 2021-2023, with residential permitting through 2022 and projections through 2050 | City of Tampa | Evidence for Target-market demand, Property replacement-cycle demand, Real estate and site feasibility | [2] |
| Housing units in the Florida Department of Revenue inventory built before 2000 | 37.8percent of listed units | Primarily 2021-2023, with residential permitting through 2022 and projections through 2050 | Tampa units in 2022 Florida Department of Revenue inventory | Evidence for Property replacement-cycle demand | [2] |
| Housing units in the Florida Department of Revenue inventory built before 1990 | 17.3percent of listed units | Primarily 2021-2023, with residential permitting through 2022 and projections through 2050 | Tampa units in 2022 Florida Department of Revenue inventory | Evidence for Property replacement-cycle demand | [2] |
| Housing units in structures with 50 or more units | 15.1percent of occupied units | Primarily 2021-2023, with residential permitting through 2022 and projections through 2050 | Tampa, Florida | Evidence for Target-market demand, Property replacement-cycle demand, Territory quality | [2] |
| Short-term-rental share of housing stock varied across listed Tampa ZIP-code areas | maximum: 15.6; maximum zip: 33607; minimum: 1.9; minimum zip: 33647; listed total properties: 17,975percent of zip housing stock and properties | Primarily 2021-2023, with residential permitting through 2022 and projections through 2050 | Tampa ZIP-code areas; some ZIPs only partially inside city limits | Evidence for Target-market demand, Real estate and site feasibility, Territory quality | [2] |
| Paid business tax receipt records in the indexed City of Tampa registry | 32,915receipt records | Paid business tax receipt records for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025; search index refreshed June 12, 2025 | City of Tampa business tax receipt search | Evidence for Target-market demand, Competitive environment, Sales and customer acquisition, Referral ecosystem | [5] |
| Building permits issued or approved and inspections conducted in fiscal year 2025 | permits issued or approved: 29,835; inspections and reinspections conducted: 138,769; dedicated personnel: 102annual actions and personnel | City fiscal year 2025 | City of Tampa | Evidence for Regulatory and operating friction, Real estate and site feasibility | [4] |
| Mean hourly wages for operationally relevant major occupational groups compared with national averages | all occupations: tampa msa: 31.96, united states: 33.54; food preparation and serving: tampa msa: 18.23, united states: 17.86; building and grounds cleaning: tampa msa: 18.07, united states: 19.66; construction and extraction: tampa msa: 26.69, united states: 31.42; installation maintenance and repair: tampa msa: 27.57, united states: 30.44; transportation and material moving: tampa msa: 21.28, united states: 23.96usd per hour | May 2025 | Tampa-St | Evidence for Labor and staffing friction | [6] |
| Metropolitan labor force and employment in May 2026 | labor force thousands: 1,690.6; employment thousands: 1,613.8thousands of people | Labor force and employment through May 2026 | Tampa-St | Evidence for Target-market demand, Labor and staffing friction | [7] |
| Hillsborough County visitors, direct spending, and tourism-supported jobs in 2025 | visitors: 28,000,000; direct visitor spending usd: 6,000,000,000; supported jobs approximate: 62,000; visitation change: -0.6people usd jobs and percent | Calendar year 2025 | Hillsborough County, Florida | Evidence for Target-market demand, Referral ecosystem, Territory quality | [8] |
| Port Tampa Bay fiscal-year 2025 cargo and passenger activity | cargo net tons: 32,415,926; teus: 262,803; cruise passengers: 1,660,315; cruise sailings: 368tons teus passengers and sailings | Port fiscal year 2025 | Port Tampa Bay | Evidence for Target-market demand, Transportation, routing, and parking, Referral ecosystem | [9] |
| Projected Tampa International Airport passenger traffic for fiscal year 2026 | 25,700,000passenger movements projected | FY2026 budget and FY2025 passenger baseline | Tampa International Airport | Evidence for Target-market demand, Transportation, routing, and parking, Referral ecosystem | [10] |
| University of South Florida system student and employee scale | students approximate: 50,000; employees more than: 16,000people | Fall 2025 enrollment and current employee count | University of South Florida system across Tampa Bay campuses | Evidence for Target-market demand, Referral ecosystem, Labor and staffing friction | [11] |
| USF Tampa campus physical footprint | buildings: 249; building square feet: 10,600,000; campus acres: 1,562buildings square feet and acres | Current campus facts accessed July 2026 | University of South Florida Tampa campus | Evidence for Target-market demand, Property replacement-cycle demand, Referral ecosystem | [12] |
| MacDill Air Force Base community and economic scale | economic impact usd: 4,100,000,000; payroll usd: 1,500,000,000; indirect jobs: 18,200; dod beneficiaries: 240,000usd jobs and beneficiaries | 2023 economic impact; fact sheet current April 2025 | MacDill Air Force Base and Tampa Bay community | Evidence for Target-market demand, Referral ecosystem, Labor and staffing friction | [13] |
| Downtown Tampa I-275/I-4 interchange construction status | project start: fall 2023; expected completion: spring 2027; construction cost usd: 227,500,000; current work reference: June 2026project status | Current work activities June 2026; construction fall 2023 through expected spring 2027 | Downtown Tampa I-275/I-4 interchange and connected ramps | Evidence for Transportation, routing, and parking, Territory quality | [14] |
| Westshore I-275/SR 60 Priority 1A construction and listed closures | project start: 2026-01-01; phase 1a cost usd: 653,300,000; frontage road lane closure through: late 2026; continuous frontage road closure through: 2027-01-31project status | Priority 1A construction beginning January 2026; listed closures through January 2027 | Westshore I-275/SR 60, airport approaches, and affected frontage roads | Evidence for Transportation, routing, and parking, Territory quality | [15] |
| Tampa industrial market showed positive absorption and building-size segmentation | positive net absorption since early 2025 sqft approximate: 1,800,000; relative performance: smaller and mid sized buildings outperformed larger bulk distribution facilitiessquare feet and directional market condition | Q2 2026 and absorption since early 2025 | Tampa industrial market | Evidence for Real estate and site feasibility, Territory quality | [16] |
| Construction in designated Tampa historic districts is reviewed under district design guidelines | arc districts: Hyde Park, Seminole Heights, Tampa Heights; blc district: Ybor City Historic Districtdistricts and review process | Current guidance accessed July 2026 | Designated local historic districts in Tampa | Evidence for Regulatory and operating friction, Real estate and site feasibility, Territory quality | [17] [18] |
| Flood maps determine property risk, insurance, elevation information, and building requirements | primary causes: localized thunderstorm and tropical rainfall, tidally influenced flooding, storm surge; crs class: 5; flood zone policy discount percent: 25; outside flood zone policy discount percent: 10conditions and percent | Current flood-map, insurance, and building-requirement guidance accessed July 2026 | City of Tampa FEMA and localized flood-hazard areas | Evidence for Property replacement-cycle demand, Real estate and site feasibility, Territory quality, Regulatory and operating friction | [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 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.
Why every concept begins at 70.0
70.0 is a neutral display baseline shared by every concept. Local conditions can move a score by no more than 18.0 points in either direction under the current model. It 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 4, 2026Added conditional scoring gates, factor-status transparency, rank-sensitivity testing, metric registry output, and factor-impact visualization data.
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.
- 1QuickFacts: Tampa city, Florida
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, and Households and owner-occupied housing share
- 2City of Tampa Housing Needs Assessment — Data Report
Used for: Estimated shortage of affordable and available rental units for households earning up to 50 percent of area median income, Median combined housing and transportation cost share and planning-district range, Permitted residential units from 2018 through 2022, Housing units in the Florida Department of Revenue inventory built before 2000, and Housing units in the Florida Department of Revenue inventory built before 1990
- 3
- 4Building Permit and Inspection Utilization Report (FY25)
Used for: Building permits issued or approved and inspections conducted in fiscal year 2025
- 5Business Tax Receipts Search
Used for: Paid business tax receipt records in the indexed City of Tampa registry
- 6Occupational Employment and Wages in Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wages for operationally relevant major occupational groups compared with national averages
- 7Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Economy at a Glance
Used for: Metropolitan labor force and employment in May 2026
- 82025 Tourism Campaigns Net $9.5 Billion Economic Impact to Support Hillsborough County
Used for: Hillsborough County visitors, direct spending, and tourism-supported jobs in 2025
- 9Port Tampa Bay Statistics
Used for: Port Tampa Bay fiscal-year 2025 cargo and passenger activity
- 10HCAA Approves FY2026 Budget, Including Main Terminal Upgrades
Used for: Projected Tampa International Airport passenger traffic for fiscal year 2026
- 11About USF
Used for: University of South Florida system student and employee scale
- 12Tampa Campus
Used for: USF Tampa campus physical footprint
- 13MacDill Air Force Base Fact Sheet
Used for: MacDill Air Force Base community and economic scale
- 14Downtown Tampa Interchange (I-275/I-4) Safety and Operational Improvements
Used for: Downtown Tampa I-275/I-4 interchange construction status
- 15Tampa’s Westshore Interchange (I-275/SR 60) Safety and Operational Improvements
Used for: Westshore I-275/SR 60 Priority 1A construction and listed closures
- 16Tampa Industrial Figures — Q2 2026
Used for: Tampa industrial market showed positive absorption and building-size segmentation
- 17Design Guidelines
Used for: Construction in designated Tampa historic districts is reviewed under district design guidelines
- 18Barrio Latino Commission
Used for: Construction in designated Tampa historic districts is reviewed under district design guidelines
- 19Flooding
Used for: Flood maps determine property risk, insurance, elevation information, and building requirements
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.