68.0 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in New York, New York
We compared 14 franchise concepts for New York, New York. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Route and curb productivity 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
27Sources used
22Primary sources
40Local 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
1.2 points average among 11 affected concepts
1.5 points average reduction among 13 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 9 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for New York, New York
City Wide, ActionCOACH, 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 1.4 points on average. One important asymmetry was that the same local condition supported replacement and repair demand while also creating legacy-system service complexity. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing local business demand moved it from #1 to #2 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 | 74.0Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 73.4Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 72.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.8 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.0 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 69.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.1 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 68.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsReferral ecosystem | -1.9 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 68.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 67.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsReferral ecosystem | -1.9 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in New York, New York
Large resident, employment, and small-business base supports broad local business demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 1.4 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Seasonally adjusted professional and business services employment in May 2026: 806,300 jobs. [5]
Large pre-1947 housing cohort with documented maintenance complexity
The same local condition created complementary effects: replacement and repair demand supported exposed concepts while legacy-system service complexity constrained others. [7] [6]
Truck-route, parkway, curb-parking, overnight-storage, and Lower Manhattan toll constraints
This relationship affected 14 concepts and reduced 1.1 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Commercial vehicle curb and overnight parking restrictions: general maximum parking hours: 3; residential street overnight prohibition: 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. except listed work exceptions; overnight pilot areas: Flatlands/Fairfield IBZ, Hunts Point IBZ, Maspeth IBZ rules and pilot locations. [13] [14] [15]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large resident, employment, and small-business base supports broad local business demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
High renter cost burden constrains discretionary household spending for exposed concepts1 modeled effect
Discretionary-spending pressureTarget-market demand
Large pre-1947 housing cohort with documented maintenance complexity3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Estimated total housing units in 2023: 3,705,000 housing units [6] [7]
- Pre-war housing units reporting three or more measured housing problems: 17 percent of prewar housing units [7]
- Housing units constructed before 1947: 54 percent of housing units [7] [1]
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Legacy-system service complexityLabor and staffing friction
Large-building emissions requirements create threshold-gated compliance burden and retrofit demand3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Local Law 97 emissions limits began in 2024 and become stricter in 2030: initial limits begin: 2,024; stricter limits begin: 2,030; covered buildings list reference month: 2026-03 calendar years [18]
- Local Law 97 covered-building size thresholds: single building gross square feet over: 25,000; same tax lot combined gross square feet over: 50,000; same condominium board combined gross square feet over: 50,000 gross square feet thresholds [18] [2]
- Local Law 97 Article 320 and Article 321 noncompliance penalty formulas: article 320 late or missing report: floor area sqft x USD 0.50 per month; article 320 emissions excess: (actual emissions minus limit) x USD 268 per year; article 321 missing report: 10,000; article 321 pathway noncompliance: 10,000 penalty formulas usd [19] [2]
Facility compliance burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Energy-retrofit service demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Skilled-trade wage premiums and lower metro employment shares raise technician recruiting pressure1 modeled effect
Skilled-trade labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
Truck-route, parkway, curb-parking, overnight-storage, and Lower Manhattan toll constraints1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
Large professional, financial, healthcare, and public-procurement account base with formal buying processes3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Seasonally adjusted professional and business services employment in May 2026: 806,300 jobs [5]
- Seasonally adjusted health care and social assistance employment in May 2026: 1,023,220 jobs [5]
- Annual value of goods and services procured by New York City from outside contractors: 20 billions usd more than [23]
Professional and institutional relationship densityReferral ecosystem
Institutional procurement-cycle frictionSales and customer acquisition
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 alignment74.0
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +2.9 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 |
| +2.9 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +1.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +3.99 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +1.5 |
| 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 | 73.99 |
| Published local-market alignment | 74.0 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment73.4
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +2.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
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 |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +1.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +3.44 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +1.3 |
| 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 | 73.44 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment72.0
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +2.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.8 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
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 |
| +2.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.8 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.7 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.97 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.8 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.7 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.97 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.0 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#4
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.0 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 |
| +1.5 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +1.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.0 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.04 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.0 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +1.2 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.04 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#5
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +2.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.4 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 |
| +2.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.8 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.69 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.8 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.69 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#8
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.3
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 pts | |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 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 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 69.34 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#10
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.1
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.1 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.1 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.94 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 69.06 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#12
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.1
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +1.0 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -1.9 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 | -1.9 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.7 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +1.0 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.91 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.7 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +1.0 |
| 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 | 68.09 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#11
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.1
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.9 pts Target-market demand
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 |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.8 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.94 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 68.06 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#14
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.9
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +1.0 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -1.9 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.9 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.9 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +1.0 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.12 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.9 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +1.0 |
| 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 | 67.88 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.9 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#12
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.4
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.9 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.4 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -2.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.4 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.8 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.61 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.9 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -2.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.8 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.39 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -2.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#14
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.1
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +1.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.8 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 | -2.8 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.9 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.3 pts | |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.88 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.9 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 67.12 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.1
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +1.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.7 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 | -2.7 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.4 pts | |
| Net local movement | -2.93 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 67.07 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment66.6
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.9 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.5 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 | -2.5 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -2.2 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -3.43 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.9 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -2.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 66.57 |
| Published local-market alignment | 66.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +1.5 |
| 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 | 73.99 |
| Published local-market alignment | 74.0 |
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 11 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 8 concepts changed position. Workout Anytime moved from #9 to #5, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted11 of 14
Average among affected+1.2 pts
Average across all concepts+0.9 pts
Concepts changing rank8
What we observed
- Seasonally Adjusted Total Nonfarm Employment In May 20264,853,890 jobs
- Seasonally Adjusted Professional And Business Services Employment In May 2026806,300 jobs
- Renter Households Meeting Rent Burden Thresholdsspending at least 30 percent of income minimum: 40; spending at least 50 percent of income: 25 percent of renter households
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+2.9 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+2.6 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+2.5 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+2.3 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.5 pts
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.9 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 4 concepts changed position. Rainbow International Restoration moved from #8 to #9, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.9 pts
Average across all concepts+0.4 pts
Concepts changing rank4
Concepts helped most
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+1.4 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+1.3 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.9 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.9 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.6 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
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 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #12 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected-1.5 pts
Average across all concepts-1.4 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- General Minimum Wage Effective January 1, 202617 usd per hour
- Mean Hourly Wages For Overlapping Operating Labor Groups In The New York Metropolitan Area Compared With The United Statesall occupations: new york metro: 41.5, united states: 33.54; management: new york metro: 94.64, united states: 69.84; food preparation and serving: new york metro: 22.22, united states: 17.86; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: new york metro: 23.02, united states: 19.66; sales and related: new york metro: 36.03, united states: 26.43; office and administrative support: new york metro: 28.72, united states: 24.79; construction and extraction: new york metro: 39.49, united states: 31.42; installation maintenance and repair: new york metro: 34.5, united states: 30.44; additional values omitted usd per hour
- Employment Shares For Construction And Installation Related Occupational Groupsconstruction and extraction: new york metro percent: 3, united states percent: 4.1; installation maintenance and repair: new york metro percent: 3.1, united states percent: 3.9 percent of total employment
Concepts challenged most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-2.8 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-2.7 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-2.5 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-2.4 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.9 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Transportation, routing, and parking
We recalculated route-dependent models after accounting for travel corridors, parking, and the number of productive stops they require.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 8 concepts changed position. Workout Anytime moved from #9 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-1.1 pts
Average across all concepts-1.1 pts
Concepts changing rank8
What we observed
- Commercial Vehicle Curb And Overnight Parking Restrictionsgeneral maximum parking hours: 3; residential street overnight prohibition: 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. except listed work exceptions; overnight pilot areas: Flatlands/Fairfield IBZ, Hunts Point IBZ, Maspeth IBZ rules and pilot locations
- Congestion Relief Zone Tolls For Commercial Vehicles Using A Valid E Zpasszone: Manhattan south of and including 60th Street, excluding listed through roadways; small commercial vehicle peak: 9; small commercial vehicle overnight: 2.25; single unit truck peak: 14.4; single unit truck overnight: 3.6; multi unit truck peak: 21.6; multi unit truck overnight: 5.4; currency: USD; additional values omitted usd per zone entry or daily charge as defined
- Commercial Vehicles Are Prohibited On Most Of The New York City Parkway SystemBelt Parkway, FDR Drive, Henry Hudson Parkway north of 59th Street, Cross Island Parkway, Jackie Robinson Parkway, Bronx River Parkway, Hutchinson River Parkway, Mosholu Parkway, additional values omitted restricted roadways
Concepts challenged most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-2.4 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-2.2 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-1.9 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-1.9 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.7 pts
Observed model effectPositive local support
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. Rainbow International Restoration moved from #8 to #11, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+1.0 pts
Average across all concepts+0.6 pts
Concepts changing rank9
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.5 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+1.3 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.2 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+1.0 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+1.0 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo 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 ActionCOACHStable · tested #1–#2
#3 FASTSIGNSStable · tested #3–#4
#4 HomeSmilesModerately sensitive · tested #3–#5
#5 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #4–#8
#6 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #6–#10
#7 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #6–#12
#8 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #6–#11
#9 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #5–#14
#10 PuroCleanModerately sensitive · tested #9–#12
#11 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #8–#14
#12 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #7–#13
#13 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #9–#14
#14 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #12–#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: [3] [4] [5] [6] [8] [16] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [6] [7] [18] [19] [1] [2]Competitive environment: [4] [8] [27] [17] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [9] [10] [5] [7] [1] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [1]Real estate and site feasibility: [16] [17] [8] [22] [14] [26] [1] [2]Sales and customer acquisition: [5] [23] [24] [25] [27] [8] [4]Referral ecosystem: [5] [23] [24] [25] [4] [1]Territory quality: [8] [11] [14] [15] [22] [21] [26]Regulatory and operating friction: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [26] [10] [4] [2]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Transportation, routing, and parking | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +2.9 pts | — | -0.3 pts | -0.1 pts | +1.5 pts |
| #2 ActionCOACH | +2.3 pts | — | — | -0.1 pts | +1.3 pts |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +2.6 pts | — | -0.5 pts | -0.8 pts | +0.7 pts |
| #4 HomeSmiles | +1.5 pts | — | -1.0 pts | -0.6 pts | +1.2 pts |
| #5 Jan-Pro International | +2.5 pts | — | -1.4 pts | -0.8 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #6 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | — | -0.4 pts | -0.6 pts | — |
| #7 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.2 pts | +0.4 pts | -0.5 pts | -1.1 pts | — |
| #8 Rainbow International Restoration | — | +0.6 pts | -1.9 pts | -1.7 pts | +1.0 pts |
| #9 Workout Anytime | -0.9 pts | — | -0.8 pts | -0.2 pts | — |
| #10 PuroClean | — | +0.6 pts | -1.9 pts | -1.9 pts | +1.0 pts |
| #11 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.6 pts | +0.9 pts | -2.4 pts | -2.4 pts | +0.8 pts |
| #12 Aire Serv | +0.4 pts | +1.3 pts | -2.8 pts | -1.9 pts | — |
| #13 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +1.4 pts | -2.7 pts | -1.6 pts | — |
| #14 Mr. Rooter | +0.4 pts | +0.9 pts | -2.5 pts | -2.2 pts | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, ActionCOACH, FASTSIGNS led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to labor and staffing friction. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for Jan-Pro International, Tiger Adjusters, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in New York, New York
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
68.0Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in New York, New York
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 67.9 to 68.1. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 68.1. Referral ecosystem added 1 point on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 1.9 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
- 67.9–68.1
- Category average
- 68.0
Rainbow International Restoration68.1
PuroClean67.9
Metric registry
The 40 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 | 8,584,629people | July 1, 2025 population estimate and April 1, 2020 estimate base | New York, New York | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | -2.5percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate and April 1, 2020 estimate base | New York, New York | Context only | [3] |
| Approximate number of small businesses operating in New York City | 180,000businesses approximate | July 2026 | New York City | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Seasonally adjusted total nonfarm employment in May 2026 | 4,853,890jobs | Employment through May 2026; office visits through June 2026 | New York City | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Seasonally adjusted professional and business services employment in May 2026 | 806,300jobs | Employment through May 2026; office visits through June 2026 | New York City | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Seasonally adjusted financial activities employment in May 2026 | 520,640jobs | Employment through May 2026; office visits through June 2026 | New York City | Supports modeled relationship | [5] [1] |
| Seasonally adjusted health care and social assistance employment in May 2026 | 1,023,220jobs | Employment through May 2026; office visits through June 2026 | New York City | Supports modeled relationship | [5] |
| Adjusted New York City office visits relative to comparable pre-pandemic levels in June 2026 | -8.6percent | Employment through May 2026; office visits through June 2026 | New York City office market | Conditional relationship | [5] |
| Estimated total housing units in 2023 | 3,705,000housing units | 2023 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey | New York City | Supports modeled relationship | [6] [7] |
| Renter households meeting rent-burden thresholds | spending at least 30 percent of income minimum: 40; spending at least 50 percent of income: 25percent of renter households | 2023 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey | New York City renter households | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Citywide rental vacancy rate in 2023 | 1.41percent | 2023 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey | New York City rental housing | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Housing units constructed before 1947 | 54percent of housing units | 2023 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey | New York City housing stock | Supports modeled relationship | [7] [1] |
| Housing units built more than 50 years before the 2023 survey | 80percent of housing units minimum | 2023 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey | New York City housing stock | Supports modeled relationship | [7] [1] |
| Pre-war housing units reporting three or more measured housing problems | 17percent of prewar housing units | 2023 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey | New York City pre-war housing | Supports modeled relationship | [7] |
| Observed citywide storefront vacancy rate as of April 15, 2026 | 11percent of storefronts | Observed storefront status through April 15, 2026 | New York City | Conditional relationship | [8] |
| Observed storefront and vacant-storefront counts | total storefronts: 142,000; vacant storefronts: 15,700storefronts approximate | Observed storefront status through April 15, 2026 | New York City | Context only | [8] |
| Borough storefront vacancy rates ranged from Staten Island to Manhattan | minimum: 7.5; minimum borough: Staten Island; maximum: 12.9; maximum borough: Manhattanpercent of storefronts | Observed storefront status through April 15, 2026 | Five boroughs of New York City | Conditional relationship | [8] |
| Financial District–Battery Park City storefront vacancy rate | 21.1percent of storefronts | Observed storefront status through April 15, 2026 | Financial District–Battery Park City | Conditional relationship | [8] [1] |
| Storefronts within 250 feet of a vacancy had higher vacancy likelihood than the citywide average | 30percent higher relative likelihood | Observed storefront status through April 15, 2026 | New York City storefront corridors | Conditional relationship | [8] |
| Average New York live-work-play retail asking rent in Q4 2024 | 91.4usd per square foot per year | Q4 2024 | New York live-work-play retail districts | Conditional relationship | [16] [1] |
| New York City industrial vacancy in Q4 2025 | 6.9percent | Q4 2025 and full-year 2025 | New York City industrial market | Context only | [17] |
| Average asking rent across New York City industrial classes in Q4 2025 | 30.07usd per square foot per year | Q4 2025 and full-year 2025 | New York City industrial market | Context only | [17] |
| Industrial leasing velocity in 2025 and year-over-year change | full year leasing square feet: 3,600,000; year over year change: 36square feet and percent | Q4 2025 and full-year 2025 | New York City industrial market | Context only | [17] |
| General minimum wage effective January 1, 2026 | 17usd per hour | Effective January 1, 2026 | New York City | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Mean hourly wages for overlapping operating labor groups in the New York metropolitan area compared with the United States | all occupations: new york metro: 41.5, united states: 33.54; management: new york metro: 94.64, united states: 69.84; food preparation and serving: new york metro: 22.22, united states: 17.86; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: new york metro: 23.02, united states: 19.66; sales and related: new york metro: 36.03, united states: 26.43; office and administrative support: new york metro: 28.72, united states: 24.79; construction and extraction: new york metro: 39.49, united states: 31.42; installation maintenance and repair: new york metro: 34.5, united states: 30.44; additional values omittedusd per hour | May 2025 | New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Employment shares for construction and installation-related occupational groups | construction and extraction: new york metro percent: 3, united states percent: 4.1; installation maintenance and repair: new york metro percent: 3.1, united states percent: 3.9percent of total employment | May 2025 | New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Trucks must use the designated Local and Through Truck Route Network except for direct destination access | truck route classes: local truck routes, through truck routes; destination access rule: nearest intersection and most direct routeregulatory requirements | Current rules accessed July 2026 | New York City | Used in scoring | [11] [1] |
| Commercial vehicles are prohibited on most of the New York City parkway system | Belt Parkway, FDR Drive, Henry Hudson Parkway north of 59th Street, Cross Island Parkway, Jackie Robinson Parkway, Bronx River Parkway, Hutchinson River Parkway, Mosholu Parkway, additional values omittedrestricted roadways | Current rules accessed July 2026 | New York City parkways and selected road segments | Used in scoring | [12] [11] |
| Commercial vehicle curb and overnight parking restrictions | general maximum parking hours: 3; residential street overnight prohibition: 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. except listed work exceptions; overnight pilot areas: Flatlands/Fairfield IBZ, Hunts Point IBZ, Maspeth IBZrules and pilot locations | Current rules accessed July 2026 | New York City | Used in scoring | [13] [14] |
| Congestion Relief Zone tolls for commercial vehicles using a valid E-ZPass | zone: Manhattan south of and including 60th Street, excluding listed through roadways; small commercial vehicle peak: 9; small commercial vehicle overnight: 2.25; single unit truck peak: 14.4; single unit truck overnight: 3.6; multi unit truck peak: 21.6; multi unit truck overnight: 5.4; currency: USD; additional values omittedusd per zone entry or daily charge as defined | Toll schedule active in July 2026 | Manhattan Congestion Relief Zone | Used in scoring | [15] |
| Local Law 97 covered-building size thresholds | single building gross square feet over: 25,000; same tax lot combined gross square feet over: 50,000; same condominium board combined gross square feet over: 50,000gross square feet thresholds | Compliance beginning in 2024; 2026 Covered Buildings List published March 2026 | New York City | Supports modeled relationship | [18] [2] |
| Local Law 97 emissions limits began in 2024 and become stricter in 2030 | initial limits begin: 2,024; stricter limits begin: 2,030; covered buildings list reference month: 2026-03calendar years | Compliance beginning in 2024; 2026 Covered Buildings List published March 2026 | New York City | Supports modeled relationship | [18] |
| Local Law 97 Article 320 and Article 321 noncompliance penalty formulas | article 320 late or missing report: floor area sqft x USD 0.50 per month; article 320 emissions excess: (actual emissions minus limit) x USD 268 per year; article 321 missing report: 10,000; article 321 pathway noncompliance: 10,000penalty formulas usd | Current penalty formulas accessed July 2026 | New York City | Supports modeled relationship | [19] [2] |
| Business sign dimensions, illumination, zoning, applicant, installer, and permit requirements vary by site and sign specification | permit general rule: most business signs require a permit; small nonilluminated exception square feet: 6; zoning and special district rules apply: yes; registered design professional thresholds: surface area over square feet: 150, weight over pounds: 300rules and thresholds | Current zoning and permit guidance accessed July 2026 | New York City | Conditional relationship | [20] |
| Exterior storefront work on designated buildings requires Landmarks Preservation Commission review and permits | covered work: storefront installation, awning installation, signage and lighting, painting and cleaning changes, unenclosed sidewalk cafe installation; designation gate: individual landmark, historic districtcovered work and property gates | Current permit process accessed July 2026 | New York City landmark buildings and historic districts | Conditional relationship | [21] |
| Commercial Rent Tax applies to qualifying commercial tenancies in a defined Manhattan area | geography: Manhattan south of the center line of 96th Street; annual gross rent minimum: 250,000; nominal tax rate: 6; base rent reduction: 35; effective rate before other credits: 3.9; small business credit conditions: income and base-rent thresholds applyusd thresholds and percent | Current rules and 2025-2026 return guidance accessed July 2026 | Manhattan south of 96th Street | Conditional relationship | [22] |
| Annual value of goods and services procured by New York City from outside contractors | 20billions usd more than | Current procurement overview accessed July 2026 | New York City | Supports modeled relationship | [23] |
| City contracting can require PASSPort enrollment, RFx response, prequalification, evaluation, and post-selection steps | opportunity access: Procurement Navigator, PASSPort account for bids and proposals, City Record for opportunities at or above USD 100,000, agency invitations; response steps: study RFx, acknowledge when required, prepare response, submit response; possible gates: prequalification, vendor roles, commodity enrollment; selection timing: may take several weeks or monthsprocess elements | Current opportunity-search and account requirements accessed July 2026 | New York City | Supports modeled relationship | [24] [25] |
| FEMA maps identify property-level flood risk and affect insurance and building-code requirements | high risk annual probability percent: 1; high risk thirty year probability percent: 26; preliminary maps used for: new buildings, substantially improved buildingsrisk probability and project gate | Current and preliminary flood-map framework accessed July 2026 | New York City | Conditional relationship | [26] [2] |
| County Business Patterns provides establishment and employment counts by detailed NAICS and subnational geography | industry detail: 2-through-6-digit NAICS; geographies: county, metropolitan area, ZIP code; measures: establishments, employment, first quarter payroll, annual payrolldataset dimensions | Calendar year 2023 | United States subnational geographies including New York City counties and ZIP Codes | Context only | [27] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects that apply without an unresolved site, territory, customer, or project gate.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 73.99 after target-market demand +2.9 pts, referral ecosystem +1.5 pts, labor and staffing friction -0.3 pts, and transportation, routing, and parking -0.1 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Franchise Opportunities in Tier-1 U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Seasonally adjusted financial activities employment in May 2026, Housing units constructed before 1947, Housing units built more than 50 years before the 2023 survey, Financial District–Battery Park City storefront vacancy rate, and Average New York live-work-play retail asking rent in Q4 2024
- 2Structural Constraints and Hidden Municipal Costs: A Forensic Audit of Ten U.S. JurisdictionsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Local Law 97 covered-building size thresholds, Local Law 97 Article 320 and Article 321 noncompliance penalty formulas, and FEMA maps identify property-level flood risk and affect insurance and building-code requirements
- 3QuickFacts: New York city, New York
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 and Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025
- 4Mayor Mamdani Announces OPEN for Small Business, Over 50 Reforms to Slash Red Tape and Increase Support for Small Businesses
Used for: Approximate number of small businesses operating in New York City
- 5New York by the Numbers: Monthly Economic and Fiscal Outlook No. 115
Used for: Seasonally adjusted total nonfarm employment in May 2026, Seasonally adjusted professional and business services employment in May 2026, Seasonally adjusted financial activities employment in May 2026, Seasonally adjusted health care and social assistance employment in May 2026, and Adjusted New York City office visits relative to comparable pre-pandemic levels in June 2026
- 6Fast Facts about NYC Housing
Used for: Estimated total housing units in 2023, Renter households meeting rent-burden thresholds, and Citywide rental vacancy rate in 2023
- 7Taking Stock: New York City's Housing Stock
Used for: Estimated total housing units in 2023, Housing units constructed before 1947, Housing units built more than 50 years before the 2023 survey, and Pre-war housing units reporting three or more measured housing problems
- 8Who's Minding the Storefronts? An Analysis of Storefront Vacancies in New York City
Used for: Observed citywide storefront vacancy rate as of April 15, 2026, Observed storefront and vacant-storefront counts, Borough storefront vacancy rates ranged from Staten Island to Manhattan, Financial District–Battery Park City storefront vacancy rate, and Storefronts within 250 feet of a vacancy had higher vacancy likelihood than the citywide average
- 9Occupational Employment and Wages in New York-Newark-Jersey City — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wages for overlapping operating labor groups in the New York metropolitan area compared with the United States and Employment shares for construction and installation-related occupational groups
- 10New York State's Minimum Wage
Used for: General minimum wage effective January 1, 2026
- 11Truck Routing
Used for: Trucks must use the designated Local and Through Truck Route Network except for direct destination access and Commercial vehicles are prohibited on most of the New York City parkway system
- 12Parkway Truck Restrictions
Used for: Commercial vehicles are prohibited on most of the New York City parkway system
- 13Truck Driver FAQ
Used for: Commercial vehicle curb and overnight parking restrictions
- 14Parking a Truck or Commercial Vehicle
Used for: Commercial vehicle curb and overnight parking restrictions
- 15Congestion Relief Zone Tolling
Used for: Congestion Relief Zone tolls for commercial vehicles using a valid E-ZPass
- 162025 Retail Rent Dynamics
Used for: Average New York live-work-play retail asking rent in Q4 2024
- 17New York City Industrial & Logistics Figures Q4 2025
Used for: New York City industrial vacancy in Q4 2025, Average asking rent across New York City industrial classes in Q4 2025, and Industrial leasing velocity in 2025 and year-over-year change
- 18LL97 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction
Used for: Local Law 97 covered-building size thresholds and Local Law 97 emissions limits began in 2024 and become stricter in 2030
- 19LL97 GHG Emissions Violations
Used for: Local Law 97 Article 320 and Article 321 noncompliance penalty formulas
- 20Installing a Business Sign: A Step-by-Step Guide
Used for: Business sign dimensions, illumination, zoning, applicant, installer, and permit requirements vary by site and sign specification
- 21Storefronts
Used for: Exterior storefront work on designated buildings requires Landmarks Preservation Commission review and permits
- 22Commercial Rent Tax
Used for: Commercial Rent Tax applies to qualifying commercial tenancies in a defined Manhattan area
- 23Procurement 101
Used for: Annual value of goods and services procured by New York City from outside contractors
- 24Find Contract Opportunities
Used for: City contracting can require PASSPort enrollment, RFx response, prequalification, evaluation, and post-selection steps
- 25Respond to Contract Opportunities
Used for: City contracting can require PASSPort enrollment, RFx response, prequalification, evaluation, and post-selection steps
- 26About FEMA Flood Maps
Used for: FEMA maps identify property-level flood risk and affect insurance and building-code requirements
- 27County Business Patterns: 2023
Used for: County Business Patterns provides establishment and employment counts by detailed NAICS and subnational geography
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.