69.8 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Winston-Salem, North Carolina
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Healthcare-overlap labor competition 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
23Sources used
12Primary sources
27Local 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
1.3 points average among 13 affected concepts
0.5 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 11 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Winston-Salem, North Carolina
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, and FASTSIGNS produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Local business demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 10 exposed concepts, adding 0.9 points on average. One important asymmetry was that the same local condition supported healthcare institutional service demand while also creating healthcare-overlap labor competition. 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 | 73.6Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +3.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 72.3Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 72.2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 72.1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +1.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.7 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Resident scale, employer-firm base and large healthcare economy support broad local business demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 0.9 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: All employer firms in reference year 2022: 4,769 employer firms. [4]
Healthcare and academic-medicine concentration creates institutional-service demand and overlapping frontline labor competition
The same local condition created complementary effects: healthcare institutional service demand supported exposed concepts while healthcare-overlap labor competition constrained others. [5]
recurring-commercial-service
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was target-market demand, while the main constraint was labor and staffing friction. [10] [11] [8] [4] [5]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Resident scale, employer-firm base and large healthcare economy support broad local business demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Recent housing additions and absorption expand the addressable household base1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
Healthcare and academic-medicine concentration creates institutional-service demand and overlapping frontline labor competition3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Education and health services share of nonfarm payrolls: 21 percent approximate [5]
- Two largest HMA employers are Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist and Novant Health: Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist: 18,570; Novant Health: 11,010 employees [5]
- Mean hourly wages for occupational groups relevant to frontline and service labor: food preparation and serving: 15.62; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: 17.7; personal care and service: 17.47; office and administrative support: 22.62; healthcare support: 19.16 usd per hour [8]
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
Healthcare-overlap labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment73.6
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +3.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 | +3.4 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +3.64 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 | +3.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 73.64 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.6 |
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
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +3.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.3
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +2.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.8 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.27 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 | +2.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 |
| 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 | +0.1 |
| 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 | 72.27 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#13
#3Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.2
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +2.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 | +2.3 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.24 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 | +2.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.2 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.24 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#3
#4Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.1
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +1.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.7 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.10 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 | +1.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| 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 | 72.10 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#5
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.9
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +2.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 | +2.1 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.90 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.90 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.9 |
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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#5
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 | +0.8 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 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 | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| 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 | 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 | 70.65 |
| 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
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#7
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 | +0.8 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.48 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 | Not included in the score |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.48 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#8
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 | +0.7 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.31 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 | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.31 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#9
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.7 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.10 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 | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.10 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#14
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.01 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 | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.99 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#11
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand | +0.4 pts | |
| Net local movement | -0.08 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 | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.92 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.7 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.7 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.11 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.89 |
| 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
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.16 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.84 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.7 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.7 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.29 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 | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.71 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#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 | +3.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 73.64 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectPositive local support
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #2 to #11, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected+1.3 pts
Average across all concepts+1.2 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Resident Population Estimate On July 1, 2025257,271 people
- Population Change From April 2020 Estimate Base To July 20253.1 percent
- All Employer Firms In Reference Year 20224,769 employer firms
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+3.4 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+2.8 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+2.3 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+2.1 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+1.7 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. HomeSmiles moved from #5 to #3, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-0.5 pts
Average across all concepts-0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank10
Concepts challenged most
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-0.7 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.7 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.7 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-0.6 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
-0.6 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, 4 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #6 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.3 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank4
What we observed
- Two Largest Hma Employers Are Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist And Novant HealthAtrium Health Wake Forest Baptist: 18,570; Novant Health: 11,010 employees
- Innovation Quarter Institutional And Company Footprint At Time Of Impact Studysquare feet: 2,100,000; people working full part contract over: 4,500; companies or institutions: 115; degree seeking students over: 2,000 mixed cluster metrics
- Innovation Quarter Sparq Provides Explicit Professional Referral And Business Network Infrastructureprofessional office hours: attorneys, accountants, marketing professionals; other connections: business and scientific mentors, accelerator or grant programs, networking and community-building events; network size individuals over: 1,100; network company count: 400; network geography: North Carolina network resources
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.5 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.4 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.4 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.4 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.4 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Property replacement-cycle demandNo material score adjustment
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideStable · tested #1–#2
#2 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#13
#3 FASTSIGNSStable · tested #3–#3
#4 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #1–#5
#5 HomeSmilesStable · tested #4–#5
#6 ZOOM DRAINModerately sensitive · tested #4–#7
#7 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsModerately sensitive · tested #6–#8
#8 Mr. RooterStable · tested #8–#9
#9 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #7–#14
#10 Mister Sparky ElectricStable · tested #10–#11
#11 Tiger AdjustersStable · tested #11–#12
#12 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13
#13 Workout AnytimeModerately sensitive · tested #12–#14
#14 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #6–#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] [6] [7] [22] [21] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [4] [6] [5] [23] [1]Competitive environment: [4] [5] [7] [21]Labor and staffing friction: [5] [8] [9] [10] [11] [1] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [13] [14] [4] [12] [1] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [12] [7] [6] [19] [20] [17] [1] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [4] [5] [21] [22] [7]Referral ecosystem: [21] [22] [5] [4]Territory quality: [13] [14] [16] [17] [18] [20] [12] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Labor and staffing friction | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +3.4 pts | -0.3 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #2 Jan-Pro International | +2.8 pts | -0.6 pts | +0.1 pts |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +2.3 pts | -0.3 pts | +0.2 pts |
| #4 ActionCOACH | +1.7 pts | -0.1 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +2.1 pts | -0.6 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #6 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.8 pts | -0.4 pts | +0.3 pts |
| #7 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.8 pts | -0.3 pts | — |
| #8 Mr. Rooter | +0.7 pts | -0.4 pts | — |
| #9 Aire Serv | +0.8 pts | -0.7 pts | — |
| #10 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.4 pts | -0.4 pts | — |
| #11 Tiger Adjusters | +0.4 pts | -0.5 pts | — |
| #12 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.2 pts | -0.7 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #13 Workout Anytime | +0.3 pts | -0.5 pts | — |
| #14 PuroClean | — | -0.7 pts | +0.4 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, FASTSIGNS led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to 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 Jan-Pro International, ActionCOACH, Aire Serv; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Winston-Salem, 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
69.8Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Winston-Salem, North Carolina
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.7 to 69.9. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 69.9. Referral ecosystem added 0.4 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.7 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.2-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 69.7–69.9
- Category average
- 69.8
Rainbow International Restoration69.9
PuroClean69.7
Metric registry
The 27 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 | 257,271people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business/economic reference data | Winston-Salem, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 3.1percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business/economic reference data | Winston-Salem, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [4] |
| All employer firms in reference year 2022 | 4,769employer firms | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business/economic reference data | Winston-Salem, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts or revenue in 2022 | 3,542,889,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business/economic reference data | Winston-Salem, North Carolina | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Total retail sales in 2022 | 6,025,103,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business/economic reference data | Winston-Salem, North Carolina | Context only | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate | 55.6percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 business/economic reference data | Winston-Salem, North Carolina | Context only | [4] |
| Net multifamily units delivered over the prior year | 1,320housing units | Most recent trailing-year multifamily deliveries, absorption, vacancy, rent growth and pipeline as of publication | Winston-Salem multifamily market | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Approximate net multifamily absorption over the prior year | 1,500housing units approximate | Most recent trailing-year multifamily deliveries, absorption, vacancy, rent growth and pipeline as of publication | Winston-Salem multifamily market | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Multifamily vacancy rate after recent deliveries | 7.4percent | Most recent trailing-year multifamily deliveries, absorption, vacancy, rent growth and pipeline as of publication | Winston-Salem multifamily market | Context only | [6] |
| Education and health services share of nonfarm payrolls | 21percent approximate | Housing Market Area conditions as of June 1, 2024; payroll data primarily 12 months ending May 2024 | Winston-Salem HMA: five-county area | Supports modeled relationship | [5] |
| Two largest HMA employers are Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist and Novant Health | Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist: 18,570; Novant Health: 11,010employees | Housing Market Area conditions as of June 1, 2024; payroll data primarily 12 months ending May 2024 | Winston-Salem HMA: five-county area | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist minimum starting rate effective January 12, 2025 | employer: Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist; cited role: Minimum-paid teammate roles; 2024 program specifically identified nursing aides, medical assistants, pharmacy technicians and environmental-services technicians among affected hourly roles; compensation or hiring evidence: 18.5; compensation unit: usd per hour; affected franchise labor attributes: frontline hourly labor, administrative labor, high opening headcount, high turnover exposure; occupational overlap confidence: moderate; limitations: The 2025 announcement establishes a system minimum but does not publish the Winston-Salem headcount by each overlapping occupation. Role examples come from the employer’s 2024 minimum-wage program; this does not establish pressure for licensed or skilled trades.employer labor evidence | Minimum starting rate effective January 12, 2025 | Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist workforce serving the Winston-Salem market | Supports modeled relationship | [10] [11] |
| Mean hourly wages for occupational groups relevant to frontline and service labor | food preparation and serving: 15.62; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: 17.7; personal care and service: 17.47; office and administrative support: 22.62; healthcare support: 19.16usd per hour | May 2025 occupational employment and wage estimates | Winston-Salem, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area | Supports modeled relationship | [8] |
| Mean hourly wages for construction and installation-maintenance-repair groups | construction and extraction winston: 25.25; construction and extraction us: 31.42; installation maintenance repair winston: 27.34; installation maintenance repair us: 30.44usd per hour | May 2025 occupational employment and wage estimates | Winston-Salem, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area with U.S | Supports research conclusion | [8] |
| Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations have above-national employment share | winston share: 10; us share: 6.3; winston mean hourly wage: 45.33percent of employment and usd per hour | May 2025 occupational employment and wage estimates | Winston-Salem, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area | Supports modeled relationship | [8] |
| Combined Greensboro/Winston-Salem industrial market vacancy and asking rent | vacancy rate: 7.1; average asking rent: 6.63; q2 net absorption sqft: 343,000; development pipeline sqft: 3,900,000mixed market metrics | Second quarter 2026 | Greensboro/Winston-Salem industrial market | Context only | [12] |
| Notable Q2 2026 industrial leases cited by CBRE were large-block transactions | 144,000, 136,000, 79,000square feet | Second quarter 2026 | Greensboro/Winston-Salem industrial market | Context only | [12] |
| Winston-Salem retail vacancy rate in 2025 | 2.9percent | Calendar year 2025 retail market recap | Winston-Salem retail market | Context only | [7] |
| Winston-Salem Northern Beltway project scale and traffic context | planned length miles: 34.5; daily vehicles and trucks in project area over: 100,000; programmed cost usd: 1,740,000,000mixed project metrics | Current project scope and funding page; page updated June 26, 2025 | Northern Winston-Salem and Forsyth County | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| I-40 lane closures and alternative routing occurred in April 2026 for Northern Beltway construction | segment: I-40 East between High Point Road and Union Cross Road; closure context: weekend lane closure; alternative route: U.S. 421 (Salem Parkway); delay advisory: yesconstruction access conditions | April 2026 active construction and temporary traffic control | I-40 High Point Road to Union Cross Road, Forsyth County | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| Electronic message-board signs are subject to a two-minute maximum change rate and brightness limits | maximum change rate: once every 2 minutes; scrolling allowed: no; daylight max nits: 5,000; night max nits: 500; attached electronic message max area sqft: 24regulatory conditions | Electronic-message sign rules approved in 2021; nonconforming sign amortization through June 30, 2024 | City of Winston-Salem, subject to zoning and sign-type provisions | Conditional relationship | [15] |
| Sign rules and permits depend on jurisdiction, zoning, sign type, special or conditional approvals, and historic overlays | permit default: required unless specifically exempted; site variables: jurisdiction, zoning district, ground or attached sign, special use zoning, conditional use approval, historic zoning or overlayregulatory conditions | Current sign-permit and site-applicability guidance accessed August 2026 | City of Winston-Salem and listed planning jurisdictions | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| Locally zoned historic districts are Old Salem, Bethabara, and West End Historic Overlay, with HRC review of exterior changes | districts: Old Salem Historic District, Bethabara Historic District, West End Historic Overlay District; coa required for nonroutine work: yes; major work review: Historic Resources Commissionregulatory conditions | Current locally zoned historic-district guidance accessed August 2026 | Old Salem, Bethabara and West End Historic Overlay Districts | Conditional relationship | [17] [18] [3] |
| Nonresidential stormwater fee effective January 1, 2026 | annual rate per impervious acre usd: 1,008.05; minimum annual fee usd: 66.72usd per year | Rates effective January 1, 2026 | City of Winston-Salem stormwater customers | Context only | [19] |
| FEMA floodplain mapping is available for property-level Winston-Salem flood-hazard review | mapped by: FEMA floodplain-mapping program; local information available: flood hazard area, flood elevation level, Flood Insurance Rate Maps, elevation certificates for floodplain buildings since 1993property risk information | Current FEMA floodplain-mapping and local information guidance accessed August 2026 | Winston-Salem/Forsyth County mapped flood-prone areas | Conditional relationship | [20] |
| Innovation Quarter institutional and company footprint at time of impact study | square feet: 2,100,000; people working full part contract over: 4,500; companies or institutions: 115; degree seeking students over: 2,000mixed cluster metrics | Innovation Quarter footprint and tenant/student scale at time of impact study | Innovation Quarter, downtown Winston-Salem | Used in scoring | [22] |
| Innovation Quarter Sparq provides explicit professional referral and business-network infrastructure | professional office hours: attorneys, accountants, marketing professionals; other connections: business and scientific mentors, accelerator or grant programs, networking and community-building events; network size individuals over: 1,100; network company count: 400; network geography: North Carolinanetwork resources | Current business-resource and coworking-network information accessed August 2026 | Innovation Quarter with statewide Sparq network | Used in scoring | [21] |
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 73.64 after target-market demand +3.4 pts, referral ecosystem +0.5 pts, and labor and staffing friction -0.3 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. 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.
- 1I 102(3).docxInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2F 102-111(3).docxInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - aug(3).csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Locally zoned historic districts are Old Salem, Bethabara, and West End Historic Overlay, with HRC review of exterior changes
- 4QuickFacts: Winston-Salem city, North Carolina
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, All employer firms in reference year 2022, Health care and social assistance receipts or revenue in 2022, and Total retail sales in 2022
- 5Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis: Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Used for: Education and health services share of nonfarm payrolls and Two largest HMA employers are Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist and Novant Health
- 6Winston-Salem Multi-Family Market Summary
Used for: Net multifamily units delivered over the prior year, Approximate net multifamily absorption over the prior year, and Multifamily vacancy rate after recent deliveries
- 72025 Year in Review
Used for: Winston-Salem retail vacancy rate in 2025
- 8Occupational Employment and Wages in Winston-Salem, NC — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wages for occupational groups relevant to frontline and service labor, Mean hourly wages for construction and installation-maintenance-repair groups, and Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations have above-national employment share
- 9
- 10Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Raises Minimum Wage for Teammates
Used for: Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist minimum starting rate effective January 12, 2025
- 11Atrium Health Implements Market-Leading Minimum Wage Increase
Used for: Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist minimum starting rate effective January 12, 2025
- 12Q2 2026 Greensboro/Winston-Salem Industrial Figures
Used for: Combined Greensboro/Winston-Salem industrial market vacancy and asking rent and Notable Q2 2026 industrial leases cited by CBRE were large-block transactions
- 13Winston-Salem Northern Beltway
Used for: Winston-Salem Northern Beltway project scale and traffic context
- 14Lane Closure Upcoming for I-40 in Forsyth County
Used for: I-40 lane closures and alternative routing occurred in April 2026 for Northern Beltway construction
- 15City Council Action Request Form / UDO-CC14 Ordinance and Staff Report
Used for: Electronic message-board signs are subject to a two-minute maximum change rate and brightness limits
- 16Signs
Used for: Sign rules and permits depend on jurisdiction, zoning, sign type, special or conditional approvals, and historic overlays
- 17Local Historic and Historic Overlay Districts
Used for: Locally zoned historic districts are Old Salem, Bethabara, and West End Historic Overlay, with HRC review of exterior changes
- 18Certificates of Appropriateness
Used for: Locally zoned historic districts are Old Salem, Bethabara, and West End Historic Overlay, with HRC review of exterior changes
- 19Stormwater Billing and Utility Rate
Used for: Nonresidential stormwater fee effective January 1, 2026
- 20National Flood Insurance Program
Used for: FEMA floodplain mapping is available for property-level Winston-Salem flood-hazard review
- 21Sparq Winston-Salem
Used for: Innovation Quarter Sparq provides explicit professional referral and business-network infrastructure
- 22Economic impact of Innovation Quarter reaches $1.66 billion
Used for: Innovation Quarter institutional and company footprint at time of impact study
- 23
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.