Compare

Which option fits which decision

There are several ways to evaluate a closure, a conversion or a new site. This page sets out where each one works well and where Geod differs.

What teams compare Geod against

Each option can work in the right context. The differences are speed, repeatability, how easily the numbers can be explained, and how much upkeep your team takes on.

The franchisor's site model

Works well when you are approving a new opening and the franchisor’s development team runs the forecast as part of site approval.

Tradeoffs
  • Usually built to approve openings, not to evaluate closing or converting a store you already run.
  • The contract is typically with the franchisor; a franchisee rarely gets the model, the data, or the ability to rerun it.
  • One location at a time, so the combined effect of several moves in one market is assembled by hand.
How Geod differs

Geod is the franchisee’s own model: your network as the baseline, closures and conversions simulated store by store, and predictions registered with a due date and scored against your own actuals where the units match.

Spreadsheets and screenshots

Works well when you need a quick one-off view and the decision is low stakes.

Tradeoffs
  • Hard to repeat across markets, teams, and time.
  • Sources, assumptions, and data vintages get lost.
  • Static rings and screenshots rarely survive committee questions.
How Geod differs

Geod models the closure, conversion or opening against your existing stores, then produces a repeatable brief with travel-time trade areas, cited sources, and decomposed scoring.

Consultants and one-off reports

Works well when you need a bespoke study, executive facilitation, or a one-time market strategy project.

Tradeoffs
  • Turnaround can be slow when the pipeline changes.
  • Every new site can become another custom request.
  • Methodology may not become part of the operating rhythm.
How Geod differs

Geod is built for recurring site review and network scenario simulation. Teams can run new candidates, closures, conversions, and alternatives without starting a new project each time.

GIS or BI stack

Works well when you already have analysts, GIS tooling, clean datasets, and time to maintain the workflow.

Tradeoffs
  • The map is only one part of the workflow.
  • Drive-time routing, POI cleanup, scoring, and PDF exports still need glue code.
  • Business users often wait on analysts for each iteration.
How Geod differs

Geod packages the closure, conversion and opening workflow into a product: define the move, generate the brief, explain the score, and share the result.

Enterprise location intelligence suites

Works well when you need a broad enterprise platform with many mature modules and a longer procurement cycle.

Tradeoffs
  • The buyer may pay for more platform than the site committee needs.
  • Seat, report, or data packaging can make experimentation feel expensive.
  • Black-box scoring can be hard to defend if the model is not visible.
How Geod differs

Geod focuses on the decision packet: transparent trade areas, demand and competition context, portfolio-scale network scenarios for closures, conversions, and openings, per-store impact, decomposed scores, and committee-ready exports, with every analysis pinned to its data snapshot.

Internal build with AI and developer tools

Works well when you have dedicated data engineering capacity and want full ownership of the stack.

Tradeoffs
  • The first demo can be fast, but production data quality is the hard part.
  • Routing, demographic aggregation, POI categorization, and audit trails need maintenance.
  • The internal team owns every data vendor change and edge case.
How Geod differs

Geod is for teams that want structured site selection and network scenario software without staffing and maintaining the full geospatial data product internally.

Questions to ask any option

  • Does the brief state the source and vintage of each input, and say when a vintage is unknown?
  • Are trade areas based on travel time, or are they static distance rings?
  • Can the scoring formula be explained without a data scientist in the room?
  • Will the same analysis give the same answer next quarter?
  • How does the workflow account for nearby stores and cannibalization?
  • Can it simulate closures, conversions, and openings against the network you already run?
  • Can the prediction be checked against what actually happened after the move?
  • Can the output be shared with finance, real estate, and operators without reformatting?
  • What happens when the team wants to adjust the weighting model?

When Geod fits, and when it doesn't

Geod suits teams that make store decisions repeatedly and want the answers to be consistent and explainable across real estate, finance and operations.

If you need a single custom market study, already run a staffed GIS workflow, or need a broad enterprise analytics suite, another option may serve you better.

Try it on a decision you are weighing

Run one closure, conversion or site through Geod and compare the brief with what your current process produces.