Local operating-model alignment analysis

Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Houston, Texas

We compared 14 franchise concepts for Houston, Texas. Household service demand was a leading positive mechanism. Territory and submarket uncertainty 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.
Analysis by Thomas Jepsen, MSc Model: 0.9.0
View the ranking See the local evidence
14Concepts evaluated
21Sources used
15Primary sources
30Local 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

Highest category average (limited comparison)Restoration

69.3 average across 2 concepts

Largest positive factorTarget-market demand

0.8 points average among 13 affected concepts

Largest negative factorTerritory quality

0.6 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts

Most assumption-sensitive rankMr. Rooter

Tested rank range spans 7 positions

Executive conclusion

What the ranking means for Houston, Texas

City Wide, HomeSmiles, and Pillar To Post Home Inspectors produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Household service demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 8 exposed concepts, adding 0.9 points on average. Territory and submarket uncertainty was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.6 points on average. Workout Anytime was especially relationship-sensitive: removing territory and submarket uncertainty moved it from #13 to #9 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.
RankFranchiseAlignment and tierLargest advantageLargest constraintEvidence confidence
1City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730
71.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+1.0 ptsTarget-market demand -0.1 ptsTerritory quality Moderate evidence confidence
2HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800
71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+1.5 ptsTarget-market demand -0.6 ptsTerritory quality Moderate evidence confidence
3Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290
70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+1.3 ptsTarget-market demand -0.6 ptsTerritory quality Moderate evidence confidence
4ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513
70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+0.6 ptsReferral ecosystem -0.2 ptsTerritory quality Moderate evidence confidence
5Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708
70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+1.0 ptsTarget-market demand -0.9 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking Moderate evidence confidence
6Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500
70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+0.7 ptsTarget-market demand -0.5 ptsTerritory quality Moderate evidence confidence
7Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+0.9 ptsTarget-market demand -0.7 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking Moderate evidence confidence
8ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500
70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+0.8 ptsTarget-market demand -1.1 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking Moderate evidence confidence
9Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675
69.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+1.0 ptsTarget-market demand -1.0 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking Moderate evidence confidence
10Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500
69.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+0.3 ptsTarget-market demand -0.4 ptsTerritory quality Moderate evidence confidence

View all 14 score calculations

Conditions that changed the analysis

What mattered most in Houston, Texas

01

Ongoing household and housing-unit expansion

This relationship affected 8 concepts and added 0.9 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Apartment dwellings in the 2024 municipal multi-family permit workbook: 3,563 dwelling units. [6]

02

Large and operationally differentiated submarkets

This relationship affected 14 concepts and reduced 0.6 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: NHHIP Segment 3B-2 construction window and scope: construction start: 2025-01; anticipated completion year: 2,030; scope: I-69 mainlane and I-69/SH 288 interchange reconstruction, direct connectors, and cross-street bridges project schedule. [14] [15] [3]

03

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 territory quality. [16] [3] [17] [1] [18] [11] [14] [9]

Evidence behind the city mechanisms

Ongoing household and housing-unit expansion1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
Texas Medical Center institutional service base1 local fact · 2 modeled effects · 1 source
  • Texas Medical Center institutional concentration: medicine related institutions: 50; hospitals: 21; campus area square miles: 2.1; employer description: collectively described as the largest employer in Houston mixed [18]
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
Campus-contained consumer demandTarget-market demand
Concentrated medical-professional institutional network1 local fact · 2 modeled effects · 1 source
  • Texas Medical Center institutional concentration: medicine related institutions: 50; hospitals: 21; campus area square miles: 2.1; employer description: collectively described as the largest employer in Houston mixed [18]
Professional and institutional relationship densityReferral ecosystem
Institutional procurement-cycle frictionSales and customer acquisition
Recurring metropolitan road-network delay and dispersed operating geography1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
Active multi-year NHHIP Segment 3B corridor construction1 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Large and operationally differentiated submarkets1 modeled effect
Territory and submarket uncertaintyTerritory quality

Compare all assessed concepts

Local impact by franchise concept

14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.

#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.6

City Wide

Facility management · B2B facility management and vendor coordination

Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730

Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Territory quality

Rank sensitivity: Stable

Why it ranks here

Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.

Local factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Healthcare institutional service demand Evidence+1.0 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #1 → #3
+1.0 pts
Referral ecosystem
  • Professional and institutional relationship density Evidence+0.7 pts
+0.7 pts
Territory quality
  • Territory and submarket uncertainty Evidence-0.1 pts
-0.1 pts
Net local movement+1.59 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+1.0
Property replacement-cycle demandNot applicable to this operating model
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing frictionNot included in the score
Transportation, routing, and parkingEffect below the publication threshold
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Referral ecosystem+0.7
Territory quality-0.1
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score71.59
Published local-market alignment71.6

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
Strong
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Limited
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Adequate
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Target-market demand +1.0 pts
Tested rank range
#1–#2
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1

HomeSmiles

Property maintenance services · Home-based mobile property-maintenance franchise using equipped service vans and technician crews to deliver bundled…

Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800

Increase +1.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Territory quality

Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive

Why it ranks here

Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.

Local factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Household service demand Evidence+1.1 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #2 → #4
  • Healthcare institutional service demand Evidence+0.4 pts
+1.5 pts
Territory quality
  • Territory and submarket uncertainty Evidence-0.6 pts
-0.6 pts
Referral ecosystem
  • Professional and institutional relationship density Evidence+0.5 pts
+0.5 pts
Transportation, routing, and parking
  • Route and curb productivity pressure Evidence-0.3 pts
-0.3 pts
Net local movement+1.08 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 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+1.5
Property replacement-cycle demandNot applicable to this operating model
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing frictionNot included in the score
Transportation, routing, and parking-0.3
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystem+0.5
Territory quality-0.6
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score71.08
Published local-market alignment71.1

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
Strong
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Adequate
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Adequate
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Target-market demand +1.5 pts
Tested rank range
#1–#3
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6

Pillar To Post Home Inspectors

Home inspection · mobile property inspection service

Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290

Increase +1.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Territory quality

Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive

Why it ranks here

Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.

Local factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Household service demand Evidence+1.3 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #3 → #9
+1.3 pts
Territory quality
  • Territory and submarket uncertainty Evidence-0.5 pts
-0.5 pts
Transportation, routing, and parking
  • Route and curb productivity pressure Evidence-0.5 pts
-0.5 pts
Property replacement-cycle demand
  • Housing-system replacement demand Evidence+0.3 pts
+0.3 pts
Transportation, routing, and parkingTemporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmedNot scored
Net local movement+0.60 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 sources
YouTube video 1YouTube video 2
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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+1.3
Property replacement-cycle demand+0.3
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing frictionNot included in the score
Transportation, routing, and parking-0.5
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory quality-0.5
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score70.60
Published local-market alignment70.6

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
Strong
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Limited
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Adequate
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Target-market demand +1.3 pts
Tested rank range
#2–#8
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5

ActionCOACH

Business coaching · home-based B2B advisory

Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513

Increase +0.6 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.2 pts Territory quality

Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive

Why it ranks here

Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.

Local factorModeled driversImpact
Referral ecosystem
  • Professional and institutional relationship density Evidence+0.6 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #4 → #8
+0.6 pts
Territory quality
  • Territory and submarket uncertainty Evidence-0.2 pts
-0.2 pts
Target-market demand
  • Healthcare institutional service demand Evidence+0.1 pts
+0.1 pts
Net local movement+0.50 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+0.1
Property replacement-cycle demandNot applicable to this operating model
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing frictionNot included in the score
Transportation, routing, and parkingEffect below the publication threshold
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Referral ecosystem+0.6
Territory quality-0.2
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score70.50
Published local-market alignment70.5

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
Strong
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Limited
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Adequate
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Referral ecosystem +0.6 pts
Tested rank range
#2–#8
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5

Aire Serv

HVAC installation, repair, and maintenance · Manager-led mobile HVAC installation, repair, maintenance, and emergency service business using skilled technicians…

Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708

Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.9 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Household service demand Evidence+1.0 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #5 → #6
+1.0 pts
Property replacement-cycle demand
  • Housing-system replacement demand Evidence+0.9 pts
+0.9 pts
Transportation, routing, and parking
  • Route and curb productivity pressure Evidence-0.9 pts
-0.9 pts
Territory quality
  • Territory and submarket uncertainty Evidence-0.6 pts
-0.6 pts
Transportation, routing, and parkingTemporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmedNot scored
Net local movement+0.47 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 source
YouTube video 1
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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+1.0
Property replacement-cycle demand+0.9
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing frictionNot included in the score
Transportation, routing, and parking-0.9
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory quality-0.6
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score70.47
Published local-market alignment70.5

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
Strong
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Adequate
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Adequate
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Target-market demand +1.0 pts
Tested rank range
#3–#8
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1

Jan-Pro International

Commercial cleaning · recurring commercial route service

Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500

Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Territory quality

Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive

Why it ranks here

Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.

Local factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Healthcare institutional service demand Evidence+0.7 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #6 → #10
+0.7 pts
Territory quality
  • Territory and submarket uncertainty Evidence-0.5 pts
-0.5 pts
Transportation, routing, and parking
  • Route and curb productivity pressure Evidence-0.4 pts
-0.4 pts
Referral ecosystem
  • Professional and institutional relationship density Evidence+0.2 pts
+0.2 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
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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+0.7
Property replacement-cycle demandNot applicable to this operating model
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing frictionNot included in the score
Transportation, routing, and parking-0.4
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Referral ecosystem+0.2
Territory quality-0.5
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score70.10
Published local-market alignment70.1

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
Strong
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Limited
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Adequate
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Target-market demand +0.7 pts
Tested rank range
#5–#10
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1

Mister Sparky Electric

Electrical · skilled-trade home service

Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.7 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Household service demand Evidence+0.9 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #7 → #11
+0.9 pts
Transportation, routing, and parking
  • Route and curb productivity pressure Evidence-0.7 pts
-0.7 pts
Territory quality
  • Territory and submarket uncertainty Evidence-0.6 pts
-0.6 pts
Property replacement-cycle demand
  • Housing-system replacement demand Evidence+0.6 pts
+0.6 pts
Transportation, routing, and parkingTemporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmedNot scored
Net local movement+0.09 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+0.9
Property replacement-cycle demand+0.6
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing frictionNot included in the score
Transportation, routing, and parking-0.7
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory quality-0.6
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score70.09
Published local-market alignment70.1

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
Strong
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Limited
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Adequate
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Target-market demand +0.9 pts
Tested rank range
#5–#10
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0

ZOOM DRAIN

Drain and sewer service · emergency skilled-trade route service

Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500

Increase +0.8 pts Target-market 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Transportation, routing, and parking
  • Route and curb productivity pressure Evidence-1.1 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #8 → #4
-1.1 pts
Target-market demand
  • Household service demand Evidence+0.8 pts
+0.8 pts
Territory quality
  • Territory and submarket uncertainty Evidence-0.7 pts
-0.7 pts
Property replacement-cycle demand
  • Housing-system replacement demand Evidence+0.7 pts
+0.7 pts
Referral ecosystem
  • Professional and institutional relationship density Evidence+0.4 pts
+0.4 pts
Net local movement+0.04 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.

Neutral model baseline70.0
Target-market demand+0.8
Property replacement-cycle demand+0.7
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing frictionNot included in the score
Transportation, routing, and parking-1.1
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystem+0.4
Territory quality-0.7
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score70.04
Published local-market alignment70.0

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
Strong
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Limited
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Adequate
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Transportation, routing, and parking -1.1 pts
Tested rank range
#4–#10
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9

Mr. Rooter

Plumbing · scheduled and emergency skilled-trade service

Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675

Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.0 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Transportation, routing, and parking
  • Route and curb productivity pressure Evidence-1.0 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #9 → #6
-1.0 pts
Target-market demand
  • Household service demand Evidence+1.0 pts
+1.0 pts
Territory quality
  • Territory and submarket uncertainty Evidence-0.7 pts
-0.7 pts
Property replacement-cycle demand
  • Housing-system replacement demand Evidence+0.7 pts
+0.7 pts
Net local movement-0.09 pts

Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.

Franchise evidence

Source material assessed

Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence

Audit layer

Full factor ledger

Full score ledger

Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.

Neutral model baseline70.0
Target-market demand+1.0
Property replacement-cycle demand+0.7
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing frictionNot included in the score
Transportation, routing, and parking-1.0
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory quality-0.7
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score69.91
Published local-market alignment69.9

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
Strong
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Limited
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Adequate
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Transportation, routing, and parking -1.0 pts
Tested rank range
#6–#13
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7

Tiger Adjusters

Public insurance adjusting · Home-based, referral-led public insurance adjusting business combining local property inspections with…

Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500

Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Territory quality

Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive

Why it ranks here

Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.

Local factorModeled driversImpact
Territory quality
  • Territory and submarket uncertainty Evidence-0.4 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #10 → #12
-0.4 pts
Target-market demand
  • Household service demand Evidence+0.3 pts
+0.3 pts
Transportation, routing, and parking
  • Route and curb productivity pressure Evidence-0.3 pts
-0.3 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 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 source
YouTube video 1
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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+0.3
Property replacement-cycle demandNot applicable to this operating model
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing frictionNot included in the score
Transportation, routing, and parking-0.3
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory quality-0.4
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score69.69
Published local-market alignment69.7

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
Strong
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Adequate
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Adequate
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Territory quality -0.4 pts
Tested rank range
#6–#12
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6

FASTSIGNS

Signs and graphics · B2B production and installation center

Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285

Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.8 pts Territory quality

Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive

Why it ranks here

Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.

Local factorModeled driversImpact
Territory quality
  • Territory and submarket uncertainty Evidence-0.8 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: rank stays #11
-0.8 pts
Target-market demand
  • Healthcare institutional service demand Evidence+0.4 pts
+0.4 pts
Transportation, routing, and parking
  • Route and curb productivity pressure Evidence-0.4 pts
-0.4 pts
Referral ecosystem
  • Professional and institutional relationship density Evidence+0.3 pts
+0.3 pts
Net local movement-0.42 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 sources
YouTube video 1YouTube video 2YouTube video 3
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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+0.4
Property replacement-cycle demandNot applicable to this operating model
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing frictionNot included in the score
Transportation, routing, and parking-0.4
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Referral ecosystem+0.3
Territory quality-0.8
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score69.58
Published local-market alignment69.6

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
Strong
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Limited
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Adequate
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Territory quality -0.8 pts
Tested rank range
#7–#13
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4

Rainbow International Restoration

Restoration · emergency property restoration

Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900

Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.8 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Transportation, routing, and parking
  • Route and curb productivity pressure Evidence-0.8 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #12 → #10
-0.8 pts
Territory quality
  • Territory and submarket uncertainty Evidence-0.7 pts
-0.7 pts
Referral ecosystem
  • Professional and institutional relationship density Evidence+0.5 pts
+0.5 pts
Property replacement-cycle demand
  • Housing-system replacement demand Evidence+0.2 pts
+0.2 pts
Target-market demand
  • Healthcare institutional service demand Evidence+0.1 pts
+0.1 pts
Net local movement-0.60 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+0.1
Property replacement-cycle demand+0.2
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing frictionNot included in the score
Transportation, routing, and parking-0.8
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystem+0.5
Territory quality-0.7
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score69.40
Published local-market alignment69.4

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
Strong
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Limited
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Adequate
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Transportation, routing, and parking -0.8 pts
Tested rank range
#7–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.3

Workout Anytime

Fitness · fixed-location membership fitness

Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550

Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.3 pts Territory quality

Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive

Why it ranks here

Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.

Local factorModeled driversImpact
Territory quality
  • Territory and submarket uncertainty Evidence-1.3 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #13 → #9
-1.3 pts
Target-market demand
  • Household service demand Evidence+0.7 pts
+0.7 pts
Transportation, routing, and parking
  • Route and curb productivity pressure Evidence-0.1 pts
-0.1 pts
Net local movement-0.74 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+0.7
Property replacement-cycle demandNot applicable to this operating model
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing frictionNot included in the score
Transportation, routing, and parking-0.1
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory quality-1.3
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score69.26
Published local-market alignment69.3

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
Strong
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Limited
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Adequate
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Territory quality -1.3 pts
Tested rank range
#9–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.1

PuroClean

Restoration · emergency property restoration

Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145

Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.9 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Transportation, routing, and parking
  • Route and curb productivity pressure Evidence-0.9 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #14 → #11
-0.9 pts
Territory quality
  • Territory and submarket uncertainty Evidence-0.7 pts
-0.7 pts
Referral ecosystem
  • Professional and institutional relationship density Evidence+0.5 pts
+0.5 pts
Property replacement-cycle demand
  • Housing-system replacement demand Evidence+0.2 pts
+0.2 pts
Net local movement-0.86 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demandNot applicable to this operating model
Property replacement-cycle demand+0.2
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing frictionNot included in the score
Transportation, routing, and parking-0.9
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystem+0.5
Territory quality-0.7
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score69.14
Published local-market alignment69.1

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
Strong
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Limited
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Adequate
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Transportation, routing, and parking -0.9 pts
Tested rank range
#11–#14

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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+1.0
Property replacement-cycle demandNot applicable to this operating model
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing frictionNot included in the score
Transportation, routing, and parkingEffect below the publication threshold
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Referral ecosystem+0.7
Territory quality-0.1
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score71.59
Published local-market alignment71.6

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, 12 concepts changed position. Tiger Adjusters moved from #10 to #5, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.

Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected+0.8 pts
Average across all concepts+0.7 pts
Concepts changing rank12

What we observed

  • Population Change From The April 2020 Estimate Base To July 20254.2 percent
  • Households In The 2020 2024 Estimate Period930,404 households
  • New Single Family Dwellings In The 2024 Municipal Permit Workbook6,128 dwelling units

Concepts helped most

HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.5 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+1.3 pts
City WideFacility management
+1.0 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+1.0 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+1.0 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
  • Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
  • Labor and staffing frictionNo material score adjustment
  • Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
  • Sales and customer acquisitionNo 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 HomeSmilesModerately sensitive · tested #1–#3
#3 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #2–#8
#4 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #2–#8
#5 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #3–#8
#6 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #5–#10
#7 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #5–#10
#8 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #4–#10
#9 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #6–#13
#10 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #6–#12
#11 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #7–#13
#12 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #7–#13
#13 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #9–#14
#14 PuroCleanModerately sensitive · tested #11–#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.

Factor impact among the highest-rated franchise conceptsDiverging dot plot showing nonzero factor score contributions for the top 14 concepts. Zero-point concept-factor pairs are omitted, and factors with no nonzero contributions are excluded.+1.5+0.80.0-0.8-1.5
Target-market demand
#1 City Wide · Target-market demand · +1.0 pts1#2 HomeSmiles · Target-market demand · +1.5 pts2#3 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors · Target-market demand · +1.3 pts3#4 ActionCOACH · Target-market demand · +0.1 pts4#5 Aire Serv · Target-market demand · +1.0 pts5#6 Jan-Pro International · Target-market demand · +0.7 pts6#7 Mister Sparky Electric · Target-market demand · +0.9 pts7#8 ZOOM DRAIN · Target-market demand · +0.8 pts8#9 Mr. Rooter · Target-market demand · +1.0 pts9#10 Tiger Adjusters · Target-market demand · +0.3 pts10#11 FASTSIGNS · Target-market demand · +0.4 pts11#12 Rainbow International Restoration · Target-market demand · +0.1 pts12#13 Workout Anytime · Target-market demand · +0.7 pts13
Property replacement-cycle demand
#3 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors · Property replacement-cycle demand · +0.3 pts3#5 Aire Serv · Property replacement-cycle demand · +0.9 pts5#7 Mister Sparky Electric · Property replacement-cycle demand · +0.6 pts7#8 ZOOM DRAIN · Property replacement-cycle demand · +0.7 pts8#9 Mr. Rooter · Property replacement-cycle demand · +0.7 pts9#12 Rainbow International Restoration · Property replacement-cycle demand · +0.2 pts12#14 PuroClean · Property replacement-cycle demand · +0.2 pts14
Transportation, routing, and parking
#1 City Wide · Transportation, routing, and parking · -0.1 pts1#2 HomeSmiles · Transportation, routing, and parking · -0.3 pts2#3 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors · Transportation, routing, and parking · -0.5 pts3#5 Aire Serv · Transportation, routing, and parking · -0.9 pts5#6 Jan-Pro International · Transportation, routing, and parking · -0.4 pts6#7 Mister Sparky Electric · Transportation, routing, and parking · -0.7 pts7#8 ZOOM DRAIN · Transportation, routing, and parking · -1.1 pts8#9 Mr. Rooter · Transportation, routing, and parking · -1.0 pts9#10 Tiger Adjusters · Transportation, routing, and parking · -0.3 pts10#11 FASTSIGNS · Transportation, routing, and parking · -0.4 pts11#12 Rainbow International Restoration · Transportation, routing, and parking · -0.8 pts12#13 Workout Anytime · Transportation, routing, and parking · -0.1 pts13#14 PuroClean · Transportation, routing, and parking · -0.9 pts14
Referral ecosystem
#1 City Wide · Referral ecosystem · +0.7 pts1#2 HomeSmiles · Referral ecosystem · +0.5 pts2#4 ActionCOACH · Referral ecosystem · +0.6 pts4#6 Jan-Pro International · Referral ecosystem · +0.2 pts6#8 ZOOM DRAIN · Referral ecosystem · +0.4 pts8#11 FASTSIGNS · Referral ecosystem · +0.3 pts11#12 Rainbow International Restoration · Referral ecosystem · +0.5 pts12#14 PuroClean · Referral ecosystem · +0.5 pts14
Territory quality
#1 City Wide · Territory quality · -0.1 pts1#2 HomeSmiles · Territory quality · -0.6 pts2#3 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors · Territory quality · -0.6 pts3#4 ActionCOACH · Territory quality · -0.2 pts4#5 Aire Serv · Territory quality · -0.6 pts5#6 Jan-Pro International · Territory quality · -0.5 pts6#7 Mister Sparky Electric · Territory quality · -0.6 pts7#8 ZOOM DRAIN · Territory quality · -0.7 pts8#9 Mr. Rooter · Territory quality · -0.7 pts9#10 Tiger Adjusters · Territory quality · -0.4 pts10#11 FASTSIGNS · Territory quality · -0.8 pts11#12 Rainbow International Restoration · Territory quality · -0.7 pts12#13 Workout Anytime · Territory quality · -1.3 pts13#14 PuroClean · Territory quality · -0.7 pts14
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [3] [5] [6] [4] [18] [21] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [4] [9] [10] [5] [6] [1]Competitive environment: [21] [16] [17] [1]Labor and staffing friction: [7] [8] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [11] [3] [14] [15] [20] [9] [1]Real estate and site feasibility: [16] [17] [12] [13] [20] [2] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [3] [21] [18] [1]Referral ecosystem: [18] [21]Territory quality: [3] [16] [17] [18] [14] [15] [9] [10]Regulatory and operating friction: [12] [13] [19] [20] [10] [2]
View the chart data as a table
ConceptTarget-market demandProperty replacement-cycle demandTransportation, routing, and parkingReferral ecosystemTerritory quality
#1 City Wide+1.0 pts—-0.1 pts+0.7 pts-0.1 pts
#2 HomeSmiles+1.5 pts—-0.3 pts+0.5 pts-0.6 pts
#3 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors+1.3 pts+0.3 pts-0.5 pts—-0.6 pts
#4 ActionCOACH+0.1 pts——+0.6 pts-0.2 pts
#5 Aire Serv+1.0 pts+0.9 pts-0.9 pts—-0.6 pts
#6 Jan-Pro International+0.7 pts—-0.4 pts+0.2 pts-0.5 pts
#7 Mister Sparky Electric+0.9 pts+0.6 pts-0.7 pts—-0.6 pts
#8 ZOOM DRAIN+0.8 pts+0.7 pts-1.1 pts+0.4 pts-0.7 pts
#9 Mr. Rooter+1.0 pts+0.7 pts-1.0 pts—-0.7 pts
#10 Tiger Adjusters+0.3 pts—-0.3 pts—-0.4 pts
#11 FASTSIGNS+0.4 pts—-0.4 pts+0.3 pts-0.8 pts
#12 Rainbow International Restoration+0.1 pts+0.2 pts-0.8 pts+0.5 pts-0.7 pts
#13 Workout Anytime+0.7 pts—-0.1 pts—-1.3 pts
#14 PuroClean—+0.2 pts-0.9 pts+0.5 pts-0.7 pts

Interpretation

How to interpret the result

City Wide, HomeSmiles, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to territory quality. 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 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, ActionCOACH, Aire Serv; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.

Category comparisons

Best franchise categories we assessed in Houston, Texas

Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.

Limited two-concept comparison

Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Houston, Texas

69.3

2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.1 to 69.4. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 69.4. Referral ecosystem added 0.5 points on average among the affected concepts. Transportation, routing, and parking reduced the exposed concepts by 0.8 points on average.

Interpret cautiously: A 0.3-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.

Concepts compared
2
Score range
69.1–69.4
Category average
69.3
Rainbow International Restoration69.4
PuroClean69.1

Metric registry

The 30 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
MetricRaw valuePeriodGeographyRole in analysisSource
Resident population estimate on July 1, 20252,397,315peopleJuly 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2020 land areaHouston, TexasContext only [3]
Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 20254.2percentJuly 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2020 land areaHouston, TexasUsed in scoring [3]
Households in the 2020-2024 estimate period930,404householdsJuly 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2020 land areaHouston, TexasUsed in scoring [3]
Owner-occupied housing-unit rate42.1percentJuly 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2020 land areaHouston, TexasContext only [3]
Land area in 2020640.44square milesJuly 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2020 land areaHouston, TexasUsed in scoring [3]
New single-family dwellings in the 2024 municipal permit workbook6,128dwelling unitsCalendar year 2024City of Houston permit recordsUsed in scoring [5]
Apartment dwellings in the 2024 municipal multi-family permit workbook3,563dwelling unitsCalendar year 2024City of Houston permit recordsUsed in scoring [6]
Duplex dwellings in the 2024 municipal multi-family permit workbook1,142dwelling unitsCalendar year 2024City of Houston permit recordsUsed in scoring [6]
Housing units built from 1980 through 2009376,667housing units2020-2024 American Community Survey 5-year estimate released January 2026Houston, Texas housing stockUsed in scoring [4]
Share of housing units built from 1980 through 200936.2percent of housing units2020-2024 American Community Survey 5-year estimate released January 2026Houston, Texas housing stockUsed in scoring [4]
Share of housing units built before 198046.96percent of housing units2020-2024 American Community Survey 5-year estimate released January 2026Houston, Texas housing stockUsed in scoring [4]
Groundwater withdrawal and fine-grained sediment compaction cause regional land subsidenceGroundwater withdrawal compresses silts and clays in the Houston-Galveston aquifer system; most resulting compaction is irreversible.textActive monitoring program; structural mechanism and continuing regional measurementsHouston-Galveston regionConditional relationship [9]
Documented consequences of regional land subsidencealtered creek and bayou flow that may increase flooding frequency or severity, damage to roadways and bridges, damage to building foundations and other infrastructuredocumented effectsActive monitoring program; structural mechanism and continuing regional measurementsHouston-Galveston regionUsed in scoring [9]
Countywide flood-resilience and flood-damage-reduction program areasfloodplain preservation and right-of-way acquisition, ongoing countywide planning, stormwater conveyance studies and capital projects, flood-warning system upgrades and expansion, interactive flood mapping and development coordinationprogram areasCurrent plan and program listings accessed July 2026Harris County, TexasConditional relationship [10]
Construction and extraction employment and concentrationemployment: 175,890; local employment share percent: 5.4; national employment share percent: 4.1; location quotient: 1.31mixedMay 2024Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TexasContext only [7]
Construction and extraction mean hourly wagehouston mean hourly wage: 26.62; united states mean hourly wage: 30.73usd per hourMay 2024Houston metropolitan area and United StatesContext only [7]
Installation, maintenance, and repair employment share and mean hourly wagelocal employment share percent: 4.6; national employment share percent: 3.9; houston mean hourly wage: 29.63; united states mean hourly wage: 29.63mixedMay 2024Houston metropolitan area and United StatesContext only [7]
Oil-and-gas field occupation concentrationderrick operators oil and gas location quotient: 6.69; rotary drill operators oil and gas location quotient: 6.02; service unit operators oil and gas location quotient: 6.18; roustabouts oil and gas location quotient: 5.97location quotientMay 2024Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TexasContext only [7]
Metropolitan unemployment rate in May 20264.6percentJanuary-June 2026; May and June values identified as preliminary where applicableHouston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TexasContext only [8]
Metropolitan construction employment and 12-month change in June 2026employment thousands: 269.5; twelve month change percent: 5.9mixedJanuary-June 2026; May and June values identified as preliminary where applicableHouston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TexasContext only [8]
Annual delay per auto commuter and Travel Time Indexannual person hours of delay per auto commuter: 77; travel time index: 1.36; reference year: 2,024mixedCalendar year 2024 congestion statisticsHouston urban areaUsed in scoring [11]
Houston industrial market fundamentals in Q2 2026vacancy rate percent: 6.7; quarterly net absorption sqft: 7,000,000; under construction sqft: 17,700,000; quarterly leasing activity sqft: 9,000,000mixedSecond quarter 2026Houston industrial marketUsed in scoring [16]
Industrial-market vacancy, asking rent, sublease availability, and leasing concentration in Q1 2026overall vacancy rate percent: 7.5; average asking rent usd per sqft: 10.04; sublease availability sqft: 6,200,000; southwest share of leasing percent: 28.3; southeast share of leasing percent: 23.5mixedFirst quarter 2026Houston industrial market and submarketsUsed in scoring [17]
Texas Medical Center institutional concentrationmedicine related institutions: 50; hospitals: 21; campus area square miles: 2.1; employer description: collectively described as the largest employer in HoustonmixedCurrent institutional description accessed July 2026Texas Medical Center campus, HoustonUsed in scoring [18]
NHHIP Segment 3B-1 construction window and scopeconstruction start: 2024-10; anticipated completion year: 2,027; scope: St. Emanuel Street drainage outfall, box culverts, detention, and street reconstructionproject scheduleOfficial package scope and construction windows accessed July 2026StConditional relationship [14] [15]
NHHIP Segment 3B-2 construction window and scopeconstruction start: 2025-01; anticipated completion year: 2,030; scope: I-69 mainlane and I-69/SH 288 interchange reconstruction, direct connectors, and cross-street bridgesproject scheduleOfficial package scope and construction windows accessed July 2026I-69 between SH 288 and I-45 South, Downtown Houston and Third Ward edgeUsed in scoring [14] [15]
Non-residential drainage utility rate0.032usd per impervious square footCurrent rates effective January 1 through July 1, 2026, depending on feeCity of Houston non-residential propertyConditional relationship [12]
Drainage impact fee for increased impervious surface in covered service areas25.56usd per service unitCurrent rates effective January 1 through July 1, 2026, depending on feeApplicable City of Houston drainage impact-fee service areasConditional relationship [12] [13]
On-premises commercial sign limits and installation requirementsmaximum signs per business: 5; maximum ground or projecting signs total: 2; maximum wall signs: 4; licensed sign contractor generally required: yes; owner installation limits: A business owner may install qualifying non-electrical signs under limited size and height conditions.; engineered drawings threshold: A wall sign higher than 8 feet above grade or larger than 60 square feet requires sealed engineered drawings and analysis under the construction code in effect when the application is made.; minimum operating fee usd: 69.46; minimum construction fee usd: 97.25; additional values omittedregulatory requirementsCurrent permit requirements and 2026 fees accessed July 2026City of Houston; on-premises signs visible from public rights-of-wayConditional relationship [19] [12]
Off-street parking and loading requirements for development and redevelopmentNew development and redevelopment must provide off-street parking and loading according to use classifications, subject to administrative modification, special parking area, or variance processes where applicable.textCurrent ordinance guidance accessed July 2026Houston, TexasConditional relationship [20]

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

01

Measure the city

Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.

02

Profile each operating model

Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.

03

Apply scoreable effects

Score only effects whose applicability is established at the report’s current geographic and operating scope.

04

Preserve conditional effects

Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.

05

Test rank sensitivity

Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.

06

Generate public output

Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.

How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score

Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 71.59 after target-market demand +1.0 pts, referral ecosystem +0.7 pts, and territory quality -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 0.9.0 · Compiler 0.15.1-franchise-image-filter · Report generated August 19, 2026 (site timezone)

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

  1. 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.

  1. 1
    Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Franchise Opportunities in Tier-1 U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
    Publisher
    Supplied research material
    Data period
    Mixed source periods cited in the supplied docket; Houston section reviewed July 2026
    Scope
    Houston section within a ten-market research docket
    Locator
    Houston, Texas section, pages 9-11 of parsed document
    Source tier
    Tier 5 · supplied bespoke research
    Accessed
    July 30, 2026
  2. 2
    Structural Constraints and Hidden Municipal Costs: A Forensic Audit of Ten U.S. JurisdictionsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
    Publisher
    Supplied research material
    Data period
    Mixed source periods cited in the supplied docket; Houston section reviewed July 2026
    Scope
    Houston section within a ten-jurisdiction research docket
    Locator
    Houston, Texas section, subsections A-F, pages 11-12 of parsed document
    Source tier
    Tier 5 · supplied bespoke research
    Accessed
    July 30, 2026
  3. 3
    QuickFacts: Houston city, Texas

    Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households in the 2020-2024 estimate period, Owner-occupied housing-unit rate, and Land area in 2020

    Publisher
    U.S. Census Bureau
    Data period
    July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2020 land area
    Scope
    Houston city, Texas
    Locator
    Population, housing, household, commute, and geography table rows
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    July 30, 2026
  4. 4
    Council District Demographics 2024: Year Structure Built

    Used for: Housing units built from 1980 through 2009, Share of housing units built from 1980 through 2009, and Share of housing units built before 1980

    Publisher
    City of Houston Planning and Development Department
    Data period
    2020-2024 American Community Survey 5-year estimate released January 2026
    Scope
    City of Houston and council districts
    Locator
    City of Houston row in estimate and percentage tables
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    July 30, 2026
  5. 5
    Single Family Permits 2024

    Used for: New single-family dwellings in the 2024 municipal permit workbook

    Publisher
    City of Houston Planning and Development Department
    Data period
    Calendar year 2024
    Scope
    City of Houston permit records
    Locator
    SF_2024 worksheet; FCC_CODE_DESC and DWELLINGS_CNT fields
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    July 30, 2026
  6. 6
    Multi-Family Permits 2024

    Used for: Apartment dwellings in the 2024 municipal multi-family permit workbook and Duplex dwellings in the 2024 municipal multi-family permit workbook

    Publisher
    City of Houston Planning and Development Department
    Data period
    Calendar year 2024
    Scope
    City of Houston permit records
    Locator
    MF_2024 worksheet; FCC_CODE_DESC and DWELLINGS_CNT fields
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    July 30, 2026
  7. 7
    Occupational Employment and Wages in Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands — May 2024

    Used for: Construction and extraction employment and concentration, Construction and extraction mean hourly wage, Installation, maintenance, and repair employment share and mean hourly wage, and Oil-and-gas field occupation concentration

    Publisher
    U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
    Published
    June 17, 2025
    Data period
    May 2024
    Scope
    Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands metropolitan statistical area
    Locator
    Major occupational group table and construction/extraction detailed occupation table
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    July 30, 2026
  8. 8
    Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX Economy at a Glance

    Used for: Metropolitan unemployment rate in May 2026 and Metropolitan construction employment and 12-month change in June 2026

    Publisher
    U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
    Published
    July 17, 2026
    Data period
    January-June 2026; May and June values identified as preliminary where applicable
    Scope
    Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands metropolitan statistical area
    Locator
    Labor force and nonfarm employment series
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    July 30, 2026
  9. 9
    Houston Area Groundwater Level and Subsidence Monitoring

    Used for: Groundwater withdrawal and fine-grained sediment compaction cause regional land subsidence and Documented consequences of regional land subsidence

    Publisher
    U.S. Geological Survey
    Published
    May 29, 2018
    Data period
    Active monitoring program; structural mechanism and continuing regional measurements
    Scope
    Houston-Galveston region
    Locator
    Program description, subsidence mechanism, irreversibility, and consequence list
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    July 30, 2026
  10. 10
    Harris County Flood Resilience Plan

    Used for: Countywide flood-resilience and flood-damage-reduction program areas

    Publisher
    Harris County Flood Control District
    Data period
    Current plan and program listings accessed July 2026
    Scope
    Harris County
    Locator
    Countywide floodplain preservation, planning, conveyance, warning, mapping, and capital-program sections
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    July 30, 2026
  11. 11
    2025 Urban Mobility Report

    Used for: Annual delay per auto commuter and Travel Time Index

    Publisher
    Texas A&M Transportation Institute
    Published
    October 22, 2025
    Data period
    Calendar year 2024 congestion statistics
    Scope
    Houston urban area and other U.S. urban areas
    Locator
    Comparison Table 1, annual delay per commuter and Travel Time Index
    Source tier
    Tier 2 · recognized institutional research
    Accessed
    July 30, 2026
  12. 12
    City-Wide Fee Schedule

    Used for: Non-residential drainage utility rate, Drainage impact fee for increased impervious surface in covered service areas, and On-premises commercial sign limits and installation requirements

    Publisher
    City of Houston
    Data period
    Current rates effective January 1 through July 1, 2026, depending on fee
    Scope
    City of Houston
    Locator
    Drainage Rates, Drainage Impact Fees, and sign-fee rows
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    July 30, 2026
  13. 13
    Developer Impact Fee

    Used for: Drainage impact fee for increased impervious surface in covered service areas

    Publisher
    ReBuild Houston, City of Houston
    Data period
    Current applicability guidance accessed July 2026; displayed dollar rates are older than the 2026 fee schedule
    Scope
    Defined City of Houston drainage service areas
    Locator
    Applicability, one-time charge, service-unit definition, redevelopment treatment, and building-permit collection point
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    July 30, 2026
  14. 14
    Segment 3B - Initial Projects in Detail Design

    Used for: NHHIP Segment 3B-1 construction window and scope and NHHIP Segment 3B-2 construction window and scope

    Publisher
    Texas Department of Transportation
    Data period
    Official package scope and construction windows accessed July 2026
    Scope
    Downtown Houston I-69, SH 288, I-45, St. Emanuel Street, and Buffalo Bayou project areas
    Locator
    Package 1 and Package 2 scope, start, and completion sections
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    July 30, 2026
  15. 15
    NHHIP Construction Updates

    Used for: NHHIP Segment 3B-1 construction window and scope and NHHIP Segment 3B-2 construction window and scope

    Publisher
    Texas Department of Transportation
    Data period
    Active project updates accessed July 2026
    Scope
    NHHIP Segment 3B-1 and 3B-2 work zones in Houston
    Locator
    Segment 3B-1 and 3B-2 status, project limits, traffic maps, detours, and active-work notices
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    July 30, 2026
  16. 16
    Houston Industrial Figures - Q2 2026

    Used for: Houston industrial market fundamentals in Q2 2026

    Publisher
    CBRE
    Published
    July 8, 2026
    Data period
    Second quarter 2026
    Scope
    Houston industrial market and submarkets
    Locator
    Vacancy, absorption, deliveries, construction pipeline, leasing, and submarket summary
    Source tier
    Tier 3 · credible industry
    Accessed
    July 30, 2026
  17. 17
    Houston Industrial Market Report - Q1 2026

    Used for: Industrial-market vacancy, asking rent, sublease availability, and leasing concentration in Q1 2026

    Publisher
    Colliers
    Published
    April 9, 2026
    Data period
    First quarter 2026
    Scope
    Houston industrial market and submarkets
    Locator
    Market Trends: supply, absorption, construction, leasing shares, vacancy, asking rent, and sublease availability
    Source tier
    Tier 3 · credible industry
    Accessed
    July 30, 2026
  18. 18
    About The TMC Library

    Used for: Texas Medical Center institutional concentration

    Publisher
    The Texas Medical Center Library
    Data period
    Current institutional description accessed July 2026
    Scope
    Texas Medical Center campus, Houston
    Locator
    Institution count, hospital count, campus area, and employer description
    Source tier
    Tier 2 · recognized local institution
    Accessed
    July 30, 2026
  19. 19
    Commercial Advertising Sign (On Premises)

    Used for: On-premises commercial sign limits and installation requirements

    Publisher
    Houston Permitting Center
    Data period
    Current permit requirements and 2026 fees accessed July 2026
    Scope
    City of Houston on-premises signs visible from public rights-of-way
    Locator
    Permit description, sign-count limits, contractor rules, engineering thresholds, fees, processing time, and renewal requirements
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    July 30, 2026
  20. 20
    Off-Street Parking Ordinance

    Used for: Off-street parking and loading requirements for development and redevelopment

    Publisher
    City of Houston Planning and Development Department
    Data period
    Current ordinance guidance accessed July 2026
    Scope
    City of Houston
    Locator
    New-development and redevelopment parking/loading requirements and modification or variance pathways
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    July 30, 2026
  21. 21
    County Business Patterns: 2023
    Publisher
    U.S. Census Bureau
    Published
    June 26, 2025
    Data period
    Calendar year 2023
    Scope
    County, metropolitan-area, and ZIP Code establishment data; no City of Houston place geography
    Locator
    Dataset geography, NAICS detail, establishment counts, employment, and payroll fields
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · government
    Accessed
    July 30, 2026

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.

Request a private franchise review
View methodologyView source registry
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.

pipelinefranchises.com

Recently updated pages: Fargo Gulfport Aurora Santa Ana Minneapolis Spokane San Diego Dayton New Orleans Knoxville

Twenty Twenty-Five

Take Free Franchise Match Quiz