65.3 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Seattle, Washington
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Seattle, Washington. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Skilled-trade labor competition was a leading operating constraint.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
24Sources used
19Primary sources
36Local 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
1.5 points average among 12 affected concepts
2.8 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 5 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Seattle, Washington
ActionCOACH, City Wide, 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 1.3 points on average. Skilled-trade labor competition was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 1.9 points on average. Jan-Pro International was especially relationship-sensitive: removing frontline labor pressure moved it from #6 to #3 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 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 72.3Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 72.1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.9 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 69.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -3.0 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 69.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.1 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 68.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -3.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 68.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.8 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 67.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -2.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 66.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -3.8 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 65.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -3.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Seattle, Washington
Large employment and licensed-business base supports local business-account demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 1.3 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: All employer firms in reference year 2022: 21,686 employer firms. [1]
Trade and repair wages exceed national occupational-group averages
This relationship affected 10 concepts and reduced 1.9 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Seattle minimum wage effective January 1, 2026: 21.3 usd per hour. [6] [5]
asset-light-b2b
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was target-market demand, while the main constraint was labor and staffing friction. [2] [3] [5] [1] [22] [23] [6] [21]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large employment and licensed-business base supports local business-account demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
City wage floor and metropolitan frontline wages raise staffing cost exposure1 modeled effect
Frontline labor pressureLabor and staffing friction
Trade and repair wages exceed national occupational-group averages1 modeled effect
Skilled-trade labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
High-wage technical, management, and professional labor market raises competition for overlapping roles1 modeled effect
Management and technical labor pressureLabor and staffing friction
Commercial loading limits, permit requirements, and overnight large-vehicle rules constrain route operations1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
BEPS creates phased compliance obligations and retrofit demand for covered existing buildings3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Seattle Building Emissions Performance Standard coverage threshold: minimum individual building area sqft exclusive: 20,000; covered uses: nonresidential, multifamily; parking garage area excluded: yes coverage rule [16] [17]
- Seattle BEPS verification, reporting, emissions-target, and net-zero schedule: benchmarking verification and ghg report: 2027-2030 depending on building size; initial emissions targets: 2031-2035; net zero target window: 2041-2050 compliance timeline [16] [17]
- BEPS benchmarking verification and reporting require a qualified person with specified professional credentials or training: yes requirement present [17]
Facility compliance burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Energy-retrofit service demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Professional employment, a large university campus, and structured municipal procurement support referral opportunities but add procurement gates3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Mean hourly wages and employment share for selected management and technical groups: management mean hourly wage: 88.53; computer and mathematical mean hourly wage: 72.96; computer and mathematical employment share percent: 9.3; business and financial operations employment: 201,160; business and financial operations location quotient: 1.42; business and financial operations mean hourly wage: 54.3 mixed labor metrics [5]
- City consultant and direct-purchase thresholds and roster structure: consultant roster categories: 96; consultant projects roster ceiling usd: 420,000; consultant advertising threshold usd: 71,000; small direct purchase each usd: 10,000; small direct purchase annual total usd: 71,000 procurement parameters [22] [23]
- City purchasing contract and bid activity described by Seattle Purchasing and Contracting: long term blanket contracts: 1,100; one time bids per year approximate: 600 procurement activity [22]
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 alignment72.3
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +2.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +2.2 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.8 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.32 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 | +2.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 72.32 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.1
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +2.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +2.8 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.5 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.9 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.06 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 | +2.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.9 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.06 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +2.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.9 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 |
| +2.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.9 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.7 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.26 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 | +2.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.7 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 70.26 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#4
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +2.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -3.0 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 | -3.0 pts | |
| Target-market demand | +2.2 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.7 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.59 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -3.0 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.7 |
| Territory quality | 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 | 69.41 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.4 |
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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -3.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#7
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.1
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +1.2 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 factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.2 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.1 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.0 pts | |
| Net local movement | -0.92 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 | +1.2 |
| 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 | -1.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.08 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#7
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.3
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +2.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -3.6 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 | -3.6 pts | |
| Target-market demand |
| +2.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.7 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.73 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 | +2.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -3.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.7 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.2 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.27 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.3 |
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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -3.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#8
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.2
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.8 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 | -1.8 pts | |
| Target-market demand | +0.6 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.76 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 | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.5 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.24 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#8
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.9
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -2.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.4 pts | |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.08 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.92 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#9
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment66.1
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.7 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -3.8 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 | -3.8 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | -3.91 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 | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -3.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.5 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 66.09 |
| Published local-market alignment | 66.1 |
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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -3.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#11
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment65.8
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +1.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -3.5 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 | -3.5 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -2.3 pts |
| Target-market demand | +1.1 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -4.16 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -3.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -2.3 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 65.84 |
| Published local-market alignment | 65.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -3.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#12
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment65.5
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +1.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -3.5 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 | -3.5 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -2.1 pts |
| Target-market demand | +1.1 pts | |
| Net local movement | -4.51 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 | +1.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -3.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -2.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 65.49 |
| Published local-market alignment | 65.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -3.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#13
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment65.3
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.6 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -3.7 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 | -3.7 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | -4.66 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -3.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | 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 | 65.34 |
| Published local-market alignment | 65.3 |
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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -3.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment65.2
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.7 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -3.6 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 | -3.6 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.9 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | -4.76 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -3.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.9 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.7 |
| Territory quality | 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 | 65.24 |
| Published local-market alignment | 65.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -3.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment65.1
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +1.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -4.8 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 | -4.8 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.8 pts |
| Target-market demand | +1.2 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | -4.86 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
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 | +1.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -4.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.8 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 65.14 |
| Published local-market alignment | 65.1 |
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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- High evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -4.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated ActionCOACH
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 | +2.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 72.32 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
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 12 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. HomeSmiles moved from #4 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted12 of 14
Average among affected+1.5 pts
Average across all concepts+1.3 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Resident Population Estimate On July 1, 2025784,777 people
- Population Change From The April 2020 Estimate Base To July 20256.5 percent
- Estimated Households During The 2020 2024 Acs Period363,466 households
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+2.8 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+2.5 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+2.4 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+2.2 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+2.2 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 2 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 3 concepts changed position. Mister Sparky Electric moved from #9 to #11, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted2 of 14
Average among affected+0.7 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank3
Concepts helped most
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.7 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+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 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 14 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #14 to #9, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-2.8 pts
Average across all concepts-2.8 pts
Concepts changing rank14
What we observed
- Seattle Minimum Wage Effective January 1, 202621.3 usd per hour
- Mean Hourly Wage Across All Occupations In The Seattle Metropolitan Areaseattle metro: 44.13; united states: 33.54 usd per hour
- Mean Hourly Wages For Selected Frontline Occupational Groupsbuilding and grounds cleaning and maintenance: 24.39; food preparation and serving: 24.41; office and administrative support: 30.27; transportation and material moving: 30.82 usd per hour
Concepts challenged most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-4.8 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-3.8 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-3.7 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-3.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-3.6 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, 7 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #10 to #8, 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 rank7
What we observed
- Vehicles Over 80 Inches Wide May Not Park On Streets Or Alleys Outside Industrial Zones Between Midnight And 6 A.m.width threshold inches: 80; restricted start time: 00:00; restricted end time: 06:00 rule parameters
- Commercial Vehicle Load Zones Require Payment Or A Permit And Generally Limit Loading To 30 Minutesmaximum loading minutes: 30; payment or permit required: yes rule parameters
- Annual Commercial Vehicle Load Zone Permit Fee250 usd per vehicle per year
Concepts challenged most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-2.3 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-2.1 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-1.9 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-1.8 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.6 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Referral ecosystem
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 9 concepts changed position. HomeSmiles moved from #4 to #5, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.6 pts
Average across all concepts+0.4 pts
Concepts changing rank9
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.9 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.8 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.7 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.7 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.6 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 ActionCOACHStable · tested #1–#2
#2 City WideStable · tested #1–#2
#3 FASTSIGNSStable · tested #3–#4
#4 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #3–#7
#5 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #3–#7
#6 Jan-Pro InternationalModerately sensitive · tested #5–#8
#7 Tiger AdjustersModerately sensitive · tested #5–#8
#8 Workout AnytimeModerately sensitive · tested #6–#9
#9 Mister Sparky ElectricModerately sensitive · tested #9–#11
#10 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #8–#12
#11 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #10–#13
#12 Rainbow International RestorationModerately sensitive · tested #10–#13
#13 PuroCleanModerately sensitive · tested #11–#14
#14 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #9–#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: [1] [2] [3] [4] [15] [13] [21] [22]Property replacement-cycle demand: [16] [17] [1]Competitive environment: [3] [24] [1]Labor and staffing friction: [6] [5] [2] [17]Transportation, routing, and parking: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]Real estate and site feasibility: [13] [14] [8] [16] [18] [19]Sales and customer acquisition: [22] [23] [3] [24] [5]Referral ecosystem: [5] [21] [22] [23] [3]Territory quality: [13] [14] [15] [8] [9] [19] [18]Regulatory and operating friction: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [7] [11] [6]
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 ActionCOACH | +2.2 pts | — | -0.6 pts | -0.1 pts | +0.8 pts |
| #2 City Wide | +2.8 pts | — | -1.5 pts | -0.1 pts | +0.9 pts |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +2.5 pts | — | -1.9 pts | -0.7 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #4 HomeSmiles | +2.2 pts | — | -3.0 pts | -0.6 pts | +0.7 pts |
| #5 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +1.2 pts | — | -1.0 pts | -1.1 pts | — |
| #6 Jan-Pro International | +2.4 pts | — | -3.6 pts | -0.7 pts | +0.2 pts |
| #7 Tiger Adjusters | +0.6 pts | — | -1.8 pts | -0.6 pts | — |
| #8 Workout Anytime | +0.5 pts | — | -2.4 pts | -0.2 pts | — |
| #9 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.6 pts | +0.7 pts | -3.8 pts | -1.5 pts | — |
| #10 ZOOM DRAIN | +1.1 pts | — | -3.5 pts | -2.3 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #11 Mr. Rooter | +1.1 pts | — | -3.5 pts | -2.1 pts | — |
| #12 Rainbow International Restoration | — | — | -3.7 pts | -1.6 pts | +0.6 pts |
| #13 PuroClean | — | — | -3.6 pts | -1.9 pts | +0.7 pts |
| #14 Aire Serv | +1.2 pts | +0.6 pts | -4.8 pts | -1.8 pts | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
ActionCOACH, City Wide, 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 HomeSmiles, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, ZOOM DRAIN; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Seattle, Washington
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
65.3Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Seattle, Washington
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 65.2 to 65.3. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 65.3. Referral ecosystem added 0.7 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 3.6 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.1-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 65.2–65.3
- Category average
- 65.3
Rainbow International Restoration65.3
PuroClean65.2
Metric registry
The 36 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 | 784,777people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 business statistics | Seattle, Washington | Used in scoring | [1] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 6.5percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 business statistics | Seattle, Washington | Used in scoring | [1] |
| Estimated households during the 2020-2024 ACS period | 363,466households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 business statistics | Seattle, Washington | Used in scoring | [1] |
| Owner-occupied housing-unit rate | 43.7percent of occupied housing units | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 business statistics | Seattle, Washington | Context only | [1] |
| Median gross rent | 2,030usd per month | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 business statistics | Seattle, Washington | Context only | [1] |
| Median household income in 2024 dollars | 123,860usd per year | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 business statistics | Seattle, Washington | Context only | [1] |
| All employer firms in reference year 2022 | 21,686employer firms | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 business statistics | Seattle, Washington | Used in scoring | [1] |
| Estimated jobs covered by Washington unemployment insurance in 2024 | 632,813jobs | 2024 covered-employment estimate and 2024 ACS demographic profile | Seattle, Washington | Used in scoring | [2] |
| Rows in the active Seattle business license tax certificate dataset | 83,800active license certificates approximate | Active certificates; dataset updated July 27, 2026 | City of Seattle business-license tax jurisdiction | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Multifamily units delivered in Seattle in 2025 | 4,186multifamily units | Calendar year 2025 and projects under construction reported for 2026 | Seattle, Washington | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Multifamily units delivered in Downtown Seattle in 2025 | 1,600multifamily units minimum | Calendar year 2025 and projects under construction reported for 2026 | Downtown Seattle | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Multifamily units reported under construction in Downtown Seattle | 3,300multifamily units approximate | Calendar year 2025 and projects under construction reported for 2026 | Downtown Seattle | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Seattle minimum wage effective January 1, 2026 | 21.3usd per hour | Rate effective January 1, 2026 | Seattle, Washington | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Mean hourly wage across all occupations in the Seattle metropolitan area | seattle metro: 44.13; united states: 33.54usd per hour | May 2025 | Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, Washington | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Mean hourly wages for selected frontline occupational groups | building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: 24.39; food preparation and serving: 24.41; office and administrative support: 30.27; transportation and material moving: 30.82usd per hour | May 2025 | Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, Washington | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Mean hourly wages for trade and repair occupational groups | construction and extraction: seattle metro: 42.11, united states: 31.42; installation maintenance and repair: seattle metro: 37.8, united states: 30.44usd per hour | May 2025 | Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, Washington | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Mean hourly wages and employment share for selected management and technical groups | management mean hourly wage: 88.53; computer and mathematical mean hourly wage: 72.96; computer and mathematical employment share percent: 9.3; business and financial operations employment: 201,160; business and financial operations location quotient: 1.42; business and financial operations mean hourly wage: 54.3mixed labor metrics | May 2025 | Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, Washington | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Annual Commercial Vehicle Load Zone permit fee | 250usd per vehicle per year | Current permit rules and fees accessed July 2026 | Seattle Commercial Vehicle Load Zone program | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Commercial Vehicle Load Zones require payment or a permit and generally limit loading to 30 minutes | maximum loading minutes: 30; payment or permit required: yesrule parameters | Current load-zone rules accessed July 2026 | Seattle business districts with paid parking | Used in scoring | [9] [10] |
| Commercial Vehicle Load Zone permits issued per year | 4,000permits per year minimum | Current program description accessed July 2026 | Seattle Commercial Vehicle Load Zone program | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Vehicles over 80 inches wide may not park on streets or alleys outside industrial zones between midnight and 6 a.m. | width threshold inches: 80; restricted start time: 00:00; restricted end time: 06:00rule parameters | Current parking rules accessed July 2026 | Seattle streets and alleys outside industrial zones | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Annual Service Zone Permit fee for building-service trucks | 1,700usd per year | Current annual permit rules and fees accessed July 2026 | Seattle Service Zone Permit program | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Overall vacancy rate in the Seattle industrial market | 9.4percent | Second quarter 2026 | Seattle industrial market | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| Puget Sound industrial vacancy, rent, absorption, and size-segment conditions | vacancy percent: 11.7; asking rent usd per sqft nnn: 1.15; net absorption sqft: -377,000; speculative deliveries sqft: 1,800,000; small bay definition sqft less than: 50,000; small bay outperformed larger formats in: Kent Valley, Tacomamixed industrial market metrics | Second quarter 2026 | Puget Sound industrial market | Context only | [14] |
| Downtown Seattle office vacancy in the second quarter of 2026 | 35.8percent | Second quarter 2026 | Seattle central business district | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| Seattle suburban office vacancy in the second quarter of 2026 | 23.6percent | Second quarter 2026 | Seattle suburban office market | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| Unique Downtown Seattle visitors in June 2026 and recovery relative to June 2019 | unique visitors minimum: 3,200,000; percent of june 2019: 98mixed visitor metrics | June 2026 foot traffic compared with June 2019 | Downtown Seattle | Conditional relationship | [15] |
| Average weekday Downtown Seattle worker foot traffic in June 2026 | daily workers minimum: 147,000; percent of june 2019: 64mixed worker traffic metrics | June 2026 foot traffic compared with June 2019 | Downtown Seattle | Conditional relationship | [15] |
| Seattle Building Emissions Performance Standard coverage threshold | minimum individual building area sqft exclusive: 20,000; covered uses: nonresidential, multifamily; parking garage area excluded: yescoverage rule | Current law and phased deadlines accessed July 2026 | Seattle nonresidential and multifamily buildings larger than 20,000 square feet | Supports modeled relationship | [16] [17] |
| Seattle BEPS verification, reporting, emissions-target, and net-zero schedule | benchmarking verification and ghg report: 2027-2030 depending on building size; initial emissions targets: 2031-2035; net zero target window: 2041-2050compliance timeline | Current law and phased deadlines accessed July 2026 | Seattle BEPS-covered buildings | Supports modeled relationship | [16] [17] |
| BEPS benchmarking verification and reporting require a qualified person with specified professional credentials or training | yesrequirement present | Current implementation guidance accessed July 2026 | Seattle BEPS-covered buildings | Supports modeled relationship | [17] |
| Sign permit trigger and typical review timing | area threshold sqft exclusive: 5; electrical connection always triggers permit: yes; typical complete application processing time: about one weekpermit parameters | Current permit guidance accessed July 2026 | Seattle, Washington | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| Seattle has eight historic districts with regulated exterior appearance and district-specific review | historic district count: 8; certificate of approval required for covered changes: yesdistrict and review parameters | Current district framework accessed July 2026 | Seattle's eight historic districts and designated landmarks | Conditional relationship | [19] [20] [18] |
| University of Washington Seattle-campus enrollment for academic year 2025-2026 | 52,316students | 2025-2026 academic year | University of Washington Seattle campus | Supports modeled relationship | [21] |
| City purchasing contract and bid activity described by Seattle Purchasing and Contracting | long term blanket contracts: 1,100; one time bids per year approximate: 600procurement activity | Current procurement procedures and volumes accessed July 2026 | City of Seattle | Supports modeled relationship | [22] |
| City consultant and direct-purchase thresholds and roster structure | consultant roster categories: 96; consultant projects roster ceiling usd: 420,000; consultant advertising threshold usd: 71,000; small direct purchase each usd: 10,000; small direct purchase annual total usd: 71,000procurement parameters | Current procurement procedures and volumes accessed July 2026 | City of Seattle | Supports modeled relationship | [22] [23] |
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, ActionCOACH reached 72.32 after target-market demand +2.2 pts, referral ecosystem +0.8 pts, labor and staffing friction -0.6 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.
- 1QuickFacts: Seattle city, Washington
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Estimated households during the 2020-2024 ACS period, Owner-occupied housing-unit rate, and Median gross rent
- 2About Seattle
Used for: Estimated jobs covered by Washington unemployment insurance in 2024
- 3Active Business License Tax Certificate
Used for: Rows in the active Seattle business license tax certificate dataset
- 4Downtown Today
Used for: Multifamily units delivered in Seattle in 2025, Multifamily units delivered in Downtown Seattle in 2025, and Multifamily units reported under construction in Downtown Seattle
- 5Occupational Employment and Wages in Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wage across all occupations in the Seattle metropolitan area, Mean hourly wages for selected frontline occupational groups, Mean hourly wages for trade and repair occupational groups, and Mean hourly wages and employment share for selected management and technical groups
- 6Seattle Minimum Wage
Used for: Seattle minimum wage effective January 1, 2026
- 7Commercial Vehicle Load Zone Permits
Used for: Annual Commercial Vehicle Load Zone permit fee
- 8Can I Park Here?
Used for: Vehicles over 80 inches wide may not park on streets or alleys outside industrial zones between midnight and 6 a.m.
- 9Load Zones
Used for: Commercial Vehicle Load Zones require payment or a permit and generally limit loading to 30 minutes
- 10Commercial Delivery Load Zone Program / Urban Goods Delivery Strategy
Used for: Commercial Vehicle Load Zones require payment or a permit and generally limit loading to 30 minutes and Commercial Vehicle Load Zone permits issued per year
- 11Service Zone Permits
Used for: Annual Service Zone Permit fee for building-service trucks
- 12
- 13Seattle/Bellevue MarketBeat Reports
Used for: Overall vacancy rate in the Seattle industrial market, Downtown Seattle office vacancy in the second quarter of 2026, and Seattle suburban office vacancy in the second quarter of 2026
- 14Puget Sound Industrial Figures Q2 2026
Used for: Puget Sound industrial vacancy, rent, absorption, and size-segment conditions
- 15Downtown Dashboard — July 2026
Used for: Unique Downtown Seattle visitors in June 2026 and recovery relative to June 2019 and Average weekday Downtown Seattle worker foot traffic in June 2026
- 16Building Emissions Performance Standard
Used for: Seattle Building Emissions Performance Standard coverage threshold and Seattle BEPS verification, reporting, emissions-target, and net-zero schedule
- 17Seattle Building Emissions Performance Standard FAQs
Used for: Seattle Building Emissions Performance Standard coverage threshold, Seattle BEPS verification, reporting, emissions-target, and net-zero schedule, and BEPS benchmarking verification and reporting require a qualified person with specified professional credentials or training
- 18Sign, Awning, & Billboard Permit
Used for: Sign permit trigger and typical review timing and Seattle has eight historic districts with regulated exterior appearance and district-specific review
- 19Historic Districts
Used for: Seattle has eight historic districts with regulated exterior appearance and district-specific review
- 20Certificate of Approval
Used for: Seattle has eight historic districts with regulated exterior appearance and district-specific review
- 21Washington residents make up nearly three-fourths of incoming class as enrollment increases across all three UW campuses
Used for: University of Washington Seattle-campus enrollment for academic year 2025-2026
- 22Purchasing
Used for: City purchasing contract and bid activity described by Seattle Purchasing and Contracting and City consultant and direct-purchase thresholds and roster structure
- 23Consultant Contracting
Used for: City consultant and direct-purchase thresholds and roster structure
- 24
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.