70.6 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Wilmington, North Carolina
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Wilmington, North Carolina. Household service demand was a leading positive mechanism. Discretionary-spending pressure 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
19Sources used
10Primary sources
33Local 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
0.5 points average among 13 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 9 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Wilmington, North Carolina
City Wide, HomeSmiles, 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 0.5 points on average. Discretionary-spending pressure was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.3 points on average. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing healthcare institutional service demand moved it from #1 to #7 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 71.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 71.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsReferral ecosystem | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsReferral ecosystem | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Wilmington, North Carolina
Recent population growth is accompanied by an active housing-development pipeline
This relationship affected 8 concepts and added 0.5 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Estimated households in 2024: 61,531 households. [5] [7]
Housing cost burden constrains a meaningful share of renter and mortgaged-owner households
This relationship affected 2 concepts and reduced 0.3 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Median gross rent: 1,395 usd per month. [4] [6]
New Hanover County visitor spending reached about $1.14 billion in 2024
The tourism totals cover all of New Hanover County, including separate beach municipalities, and are annual aggregates. They support a large regional visitor economy but do not establish uniform citywide walk-in density, a specific Wilmington trade area, or a six-month revenue drought. Fixed-location and event-dependent concepts require location- and season-specific demand evidence. [12] [1]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Recent population growth is accompanied by an active housing-development pipeline1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
Large healthcare activity supports institutional service demand without establishing broad labor inflation3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 4 sources
- Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue: 3,203,463,000 usd [4]
- Education and health services employment in June 2026: 34,800 jobs [9]
- Novant Health stated system living wage: 17 usd per hour [10] [2]
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
Healthcare-overlap labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
UNCW and a sizable professional-services base support professional referral opportunities1 modeled effect
Professional and institutional relationship densityReferral ecosystem
Housing cost burden constrains a meaningful share of renter and mortgaged-owner households1 modeled effect
Discretionary-spending pressureTarget-market demand
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.5
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.53 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.53 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#5
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.5
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.0 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.49 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.49 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#6
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.2
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.17 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.17 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.2 |
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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#6
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.6 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 |
| +0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.03 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.03 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#7
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.95 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.95 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#12
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.6 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 |
| +0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.87 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.87 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#9
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.79 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.79 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#11
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +0.6 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 |
| +0.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.79 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.79 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#11
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.66 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.66 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#10
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.6 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 |
| +0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.65 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.65 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#13
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.62 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.62 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#11
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.5 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 |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.55 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.55 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.20 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.20 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.1 pts Target-market demand
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.1 pts | |
| Net local movement | -0.09 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.91 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.9 |
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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand -0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #14–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| 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.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors moved from #5 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected+0.5 pts
Average across all concepts+0.4 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Population Change From April 2020 Estimate Base To July 20259.8 percent
- Estimated Households In 202461,531 households
- Housing Units Expected From Projects Reviewed In April June 2025974 housing units when complete
Concepts helped most
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.0 pts
City WideFacility management
+0.9 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.8 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+0.6 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.6 pts
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.1 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #4 to #10, 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 rank6
What we observed
- Estimated Total Housing Units In 202467,186 housing units
- Median Year Built For Occupied Housing Units1,989 year
- Housing Units Built From 1970 Through 199940.2 percent of housing units
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.4 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.3 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.3 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.3 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+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, 9 concepts changed position. City Wide moved from #1 to #5, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank9
What we observed
- Professional And Business Services Employment In June 202624,600 jobs
- Unc Wilmington Total Enrollment In Fall 202519,895 students
- Approximate Unc Wilmington Employee Count2,500 employees approximate
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
+0.4 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Labor and staffing frictionNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideHighly sensitive · tested #1–#5
#2 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #2–#6
#3 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #1–#6
#4 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #1–#7
#5 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #3–#12
#6 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #4–#9
#7 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #7–#11
#8 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #5–#11
#9 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #5–#10
#10 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #4–#13
#11 FASTSIGNSModerately sensitive · tested #8–#11
#12 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #3–#12
#13 Tiger AdjustersModerately sensitive · tested #11–#13
#14 Workout AnytimeStable · tested #14–#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: [4] [5] [7] [6] [12] [11] [9] [13] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [6] [17] [16] [1]Competitive environment: [4] [13] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [4] [18] [19] [2] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [13] [7] [16] [17] [1] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [13] [12] [4] [3]Referral ecosystem: [11] [9] [4] [13]Territory quality: [4] [12] [13] [18] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [14] [15] [16] [17] [3] [2]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +0.9 pts | — | +0.7 pts |
| #2 HomeSmiles | +1.0 pts | — | +0.5 pts |
| #3 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.5 pts | +0.3 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #4 Aire Serv | +0.6 pts | +0.4 pts | — |
| #5 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.8 pts | +0.1 pts | — |
| #6 Mr. Rooter | +0.6 pts | +0.3 pts | — |
| #7 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.5 pts | +0.3 pts | — |
| #8 Jan-Pro International | +0.6 pts | — | +0.2 pts |
| #9 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.1 pts | +0.1 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #10 ActionCOACH | +0.1 pts | — | +0.6 pts |
| #11 FASTSIGNS | +0.3 pts | — | +0.3 pts |
| #12 PuroClean | — | +0.1 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #13 Tiger Adjusters | +0.2 pts | — | — |
| #14 Workout Anytime | -0.1 pts | — | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, HomeSmiles, ZOOM DRAIN led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to competitive environment. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for City Wide, HomeSmiles, ZOOM DRAIN; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Wilmington, North Carolina
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 Wilmington, North Carolina
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.6 to 70.7. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.7. Referral ecosystem added 0.5 points on average among the affected concepts.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.1-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.6–70.7
- Category average
- 70.6
Rainbow International Restoration70.7
PuroClean70.6
Metric registry
The 33 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 | 126,809people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic census measures | Wilmington, North Carolina | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 9.8percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic census measures | Wilmington, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Estimated households in 2024 | 61,531households | 2024 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates and 2020 Decennial Census | Wilmington, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Estimated total housing units in 2024 | 67,186housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates and 2020 Decennial Census | Wilmington, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Housing units expected from projects reviewed in April-June 2025 | 974housing units when complete | April-June 2025 zoning permit activity | Wilmington, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate | 47.6percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic census measures | Wilmington, North Carolina | Context only | [4] [6] |
| Median value of owner-occupied housing units | 383,800usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic census measures | Wilmington, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [4] [6] |
| Median gross rent | 1,395usd per month | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic census measures | Wilmington, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Renter households spending at least 30 percent of income on housing costs | 56.4percent of renter households | U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2020-2024 5-Year Estimates | Wilmington, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Owner households with a mortgage spending at least 30 percent of income on housing costs | 29percent of mortgaged owner households | U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2020-2024 5-Year Estimates | Wilmington, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Median year built for occupied housing units | 1,989year | U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2020-2024 5-Year Estimates | Wilmington, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [6] [1] |
| Housing units built from 1970 through 1999 | 40.2percent of housing units | U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2020-2024 5-Year Estimates | Wilmington, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [6] [1] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue | 3,203,463,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic census measures | Wilmington, North Carolina | Supports modeled relationship | [4] |
| Education and health services employment in June 2026 | 34,800jobs | January-June 2026; data extracted August 13, 2026 | Wilmington, NC MSA | Supports modeled relationship | [9] |
| Professional and business services employment in June 2026 | 24,600jobs | January-June 2026; data extracted August 13, 2026 | Wilmington, NC MSA | Used in scoring | [9] |
| UNC Wilmington total enrollment in Fall 2025 | 19,895students | Fall 2025 | University of North Carolina Wilmington | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Approximate UNC Wilmington employee count | 2,500employees approximate | Fall 2025 | University of North Carolina Wilmington | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Visitor spending in New Hanover County during 2024 | 1,139,780,000usd | Calendar year 2024 | New Hanover County, North Carolina | Supports research conclusion | [12] [1] |
| Direct travel and tourism employment in New Hanover County during 2024 | 7,003jobs | Calendar year 2024 | New Hanover County, North Carolina | Supports research conclusion | [12] |
| Unemployment rate in June 2026 | 3.5percent | January-June 2026; data extracted August 13, 2026 | Wilmington, NC MSA | Context only | [9] |
| Mean hourly wage for food preparation and serving related occupations | 16.03usd per hour | May 2025 | Wilmington, NC MSA | Context only | [8] |
| Mean hourly wage for building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations | 17.93usd per hour | May 2025 | Wilmington, NC MSA | Context only | [8] |
| Mean hourly wage for installation, maintenance, and repair occupations | 27.02usd per hour | May 2025 | Wilmington, NC MSA | Context only | [8] |
| Novant Health stated system living wage | 17usd per hour | 2025 compensation program | Novant Health | Supports modeled relationship | [10] [2] |
| Reported Wilmington-market retail vacancy rate in first quarter 2026 | 1.4percent | First quarter 2026 and projects active/planned in 2025-2026 | Wilmington market | Context only | [13] |
| Current local reporting on small flex-space supply | limited supply with new small and mid sized projects underwayqualitative | First quarter 2026 and projects active/planned in 2025-2026 | Wilmington/New Hanover market | Context only | [13] [1] |
| Mayfaire-area commercial demand and new development | medical office demand and new retail pipeline reportedqualitative | First quarter 2026 and projects active/planned in 2025-2026 | Mayfaire / Military Cutoff area, Wilmington | Context only | [13] [3] |
| Sign permits and historic-district/overlay gate | zoning permit required for permanent and temporary signs; certificate of appropriateness also required in local historic and overlay districtsqualitative | Current requirements accessed August 2026 | City of Wilmington | Conditional relationship | [14] [15] |
| Scope of Wilmington Comprehensive Stormwater Ordinance | applies to new development redevelopment expansion or modification of existing developmentqualitative | Current requirements accessed August 2026; ordinance effective November 1, 2009 | City of Wilmington | Context only | [16] |
| FEMA-designated flood zones affect parts of Wilmington | property specific flood zone exposure exists within cityqualitative | Current guidance accessed August 2026 | Wilmington, North Carolina | Context only | [17] [1] |
| Mean travel time to work | 18.5minutes | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic census measures | Wilmington, North Carolina | Context only | [4] |
| Cape Fear Memorial Bridge replacement project status | preferred option not yet selected and funding solution still in developmentqualitative | Project-development status as of June 15, 2026 | Cape Fear Memorial Bridge / Wilmington western approach | Supports modeled relationship | [18] [19] [2] |
| Cape Fear Memorial Bridge 2021 average annual daily traffic | total vehicles: 69,000; trucks: 8,280vehicles per day | Environmental assessment released August 2026; bridge traffic reference year 2021 | Cape Fear Memorial Bridge | Supports modeled relationship | [19] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects whose applicability is established at the report’s current geographic and operating scope.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 71.53 after target-market demand +0.9 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 claims or metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is clearly distinguished from publicly accessible evidence.
- 1Utility Delta Audit: Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Opportunities in U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Median year built for occupied housing units, Housing units built from 1970 through 1999, Visitor spending in New Hanover County during 2024, Current local reporting on small flex-space supply, and FEMA-designated flood zones affect parts of Wilmington
- 2Municipal Hostility Index: Forensic Capitalization of Structural Constraints and Economic Choke PointsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Novant Health stated system living wage and Cape Fear Memorial Bridge replacement project status
- 3Franchise data - remake - 162(1).csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Mayfaire-area commercial demand and new development
- 4QuickFacts: Wilmington city, North Carolina
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Owner-occupied housing unit rate, Median value of owner-occupied housing units, and Median gross rent
- 5Wilmington city, North Carolina - Census Bureau Profile
Used for: Estimated households in 2024 and Estimated total housing units in 2024
- 6Wilmington, NC Facts, Statistics and Data
Used for: Owner-occupied housing unit rate, Median value of owner-occupied housing units, Renter households spending at least 30 percent of income on housing costs, Owner households with a mortgage spending at least 30 percent of income on housing costs, and Median year built for occupied housing units
- 7In the Zone with Planning & Development: New Faces, New Paces at City Hall
Used for: Housing units expected from projects reviewed in April-June 2025
- 8Occupational Employment and Wages in Wilmington, NC — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wage for food preparation and serving related occupations, Mean hourly wage for building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations, and Mean hourly wage for installation, maintenance, and repair occupations
- 9Wilmington, NC Economy at a Glance
Used for: Education and health services employment in June 2026, Professional and business services employment in June 2026, and Unemployment rate in June 2026
- 10Recognizing remarkable: Novant Health invests more than $300 million in team member compensation
Used for: Novant Health stated system living wage
- 11Get to Know UNCW
Used for: UNC Wilmington total enrollment in Fall 2025 and Approximate UNC Wilmington employee count
- 122024 Visitor Impact for New Hanover County; Record Spending Sets New Benchmark
Used for: Visitor spending in New Hanover County during 2024 and Direct travel and tourism employment in New Hanover County during 2024
- 13Trends To Watch: Commercial Real Estate
Used for: Reported Wilmington-market retail vacancy rate in first quarter 2026, Current local reporting on small flex-space supply, and Mayfaire-area commercial demand and new development
- 14Install a sign
Used for: Sign permits and historic-district/overlay gate
- 15Certificate of Appropriateness-Major Works
Used for: Sign permits and historic-district/overlay gate
- 16Stormwater Permits
Used for: Scope of Wilmington Comprehensive Stormwater Ordinance
- 17Zoning Compliance
Used for: FEMA-designated flood zones affect parts of Wilmington
- 18Cape Fear Memorial Bridge Replacement Study — Study Highlights
Used for: Cape Fear Memorial Bridge replacement project status
- 19Report Weighs Potential Impacts From Cape Fear Memorial Bridge Alternatives
Used for: Cape Fear Memorial Bridge replacement project status and Cape Fear Memorial Bridge 2021 average annual daily traffic
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.