69.4 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Queens, New York
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Queens, New York. 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
22Sources used
17Primary sources
28Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
1.2 points average among 10 affected concepts
1.2 points average reduction among 13 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 8 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Queens, New York
City Wide, ActionCOACH, and FASTSIGNS produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Local business demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 10 exposed concepts, adding 1.2 points on average. One important asymmetry was that the same local condition supported replacement and repair demand while also creating legacy-system service complexity. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing local business demand moved it from #1 to #2 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 73.2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 72.8Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.1 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 72.2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.0 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 69.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsReferral ecosystem | -1.9 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 69.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsReferral ecosystem | -1.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 69.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsReferral ecosystem | -1.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Queens, New York
Large resident, employer, nonemployer, and sector base supports broad local business demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 1.2 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Queens employer and nonemployer business base: employer establishments: 51,188; total employment: 616,045; annual payroll usd thousands: 35,016,828; employment change 2022 2023 percent: 6.2; nonemployer establishments: 286,717 mixed. [3]
Queens has a large mid-century and pre-war housing stock with elevated maintenance complexity
The same local condition created complementary effects: replacement and repair demand supported exposed concepts while legacy-system service complexity constrained others. [3] [6]
Metropolitan skilled-trade wage premiums and smaller employment shares raise technician recruiting pressure
This relationship affected 10 concepts and reduced 0.9 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Metropolitan mean hourly wages and employment shares for overlapping labor groups: all occupations: local hourly wage: 41.5, national hourly wage: 33.54; food preparation and serving: local hourly wage: 22.22, national hourly wage: 17.86, local employment share percent: 7.4; building and grounds cleaning: local hourly wage: 23.02, national hourly wage: 19.66, local employment share percent: 3.2; sales: local hourly wage: 36.03, national hourly wage: 26.43, local employment share percent: 7.9; office and administrative support: local hourly wage: 28.72, national hourly wage: 24.79, local employment share percent: 11.7; construction and extraction: local hourly wage: 39.49, national hourly wage: 31.42, local employment share percent: 3; installation maintenance and repair: local hourly wage: 34.5, national hourly wage: 30.44, local employment share percent: 3.1; transportation and material moving: local hourly wage: 27.92, national hourly wage: 23.96, local employment share percent: 7.4 usd per hour and percent. [7] [5]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large resident, employer, nonemployer, and sector base supports broad local business demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Queens has a large mid-century and pre-war housing stock with elevated maintenance complexity3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Queens household and housing base: housing units 2025: 934,750; households 2020 2024: 841,003; persons per household 2020 2024: 2.72; owner occupied rate percent 2020 2024: 44.9; building permits 2025: 3,395 mixed [3]
- Pre-war housing units reporting three or more measured housing problems compared with newer units: prewar units percent: 17; newer units percent: 7.7 percent of age cohort [6]
- Queens housing-stock age profile from Census-derived county estimates: median year built: 1,953; built 1939 or earlier percent: 30.3; built 1939 or earlier units: 273,370; total housing units in source: 903,598 mixed [5]
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Legacy-system service complexityLabor and staffing friction
Large-building emissions requirements create threshold-gated compliance burden and retrofit demand in Queens2 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Local Law 97 covered-building size thresholds and tightening schedule: single building gross square feet over: 25,000; same tax lot combined gross square feet over: 50,000; initial limits begin: 2,024; stricter limits begin: 2,030; covered buildings list reference date: 2026-03 mixed [19]
- Queens housing-stock age profile from Census-derived county estimates: median year built: 1,953; built 1939 or earlier percent: 30.3; built 1939 or earlier units: 273,370; total housing units in source: 903,598 mixed [5]
Facility compliance burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Energy-retrofit service demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Elevated statutory and metropolitan wages affect overlapping frontline, administrative, sales, and transportation roles1 modeled effect
Frontline labor pressureLabor and staffing friction
Metropolitan skilled-trade wage premiums and smaller employment shares raise technician recruiting pressure1 modeled effect
Skilled-trade labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
Large healthcare, airport, and public-procurement account base supports institutional prospecting and formal buying channels3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Approximate annual value of goods and services procured by New York City: 20,000,000,000 usd per year minimum [17]
- City contracting uses vendor registration, PASSPort RFx, invitations, City Record notices, and sometimes prequalification: passport account required to submit: yes; public opportunity search available: yes; rfx process: yes; prequalification may apply: yes; city record publication threshold usd: 100,000 [18]
- Queens employer and nonemployer business base: employer establishments: 51,188; total employment: 616,045; annual payroll usd thousands: 35,016,828; employment change 2022 2023 percent: 6.2; nonemployer establishments: 286,717 mixed [3]
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 alignment73.2
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +2.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +2.5 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.9 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +3.20 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 | +2.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 73.20 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.2 |
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
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.8
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +2.1 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +2.1 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.8 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +2.80 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 | +2.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 72.80 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.8 |
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
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#3Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.2
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +2.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +2.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.24 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | 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 | 72.24 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#3
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +2.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +2.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.3 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.12 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 | +2.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | 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 | 71.12 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#11
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.0 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 |
| +1.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.0 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.11 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.4 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.7 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.11 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#5
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.2 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.06 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 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.06 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#12
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 pts | |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 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 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.91 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#13
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -1.9 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.9 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.41 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 | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.59 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#10
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.6 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -1.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.6 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.58 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| 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 | 69.42 |
| 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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#13
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.6 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -1.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.6 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.63 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| 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 | 69.37 |
| 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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#14
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.3
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.7 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.73 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
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 | -0.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.27 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#14
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.1
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.9 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.2 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.9 pts | |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.93 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.9 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.07 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.9
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.0 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.0 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.13 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.0 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.87 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.8
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +1.0 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.2 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.0 pts | |
| Net local movement | -1.19 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.0 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.81 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.8 |
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
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 73.20 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.2 |
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 10 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 13 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #4 to #11, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted10 of 14
Average among affected+1.2 pts
Average across all concepts+0.9 pts
Concepts changing rank13
What we observed
- Resident Population Estimate On July 1, 20252,358,182 people
- Queens Household And Housing Basehousing units 2025: 934,750; households 2020 2024: 841,003; persons per household 2020 2024: 2.72; owner occupied rate percent 2020 2024: 44.9; building permits 2025: 3,395 mixed
- Queens Employer And Nonemployer Business Baseemployer establishments: 51,188; total employment: 616,045; annual payroll usd thousands: 35,016,828; employment change 2022 2023 percent: 6.2; nonemployer establishments: 286,717 mixed
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+2.6 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+2.3 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+2.2 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+2.1 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.4 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. PuroClean moved from #9 to #11, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.6 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank7
Concepts helped most
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+1.0 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.9 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.5 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.4 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 8 concepts changed position. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors moved from #6 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected-1.2 pts
Average across all concepts-1.2 pts
Concepts changing rank8
What we observed
- General Minimum Wage Effective January 1, 202617 usd per hour
- Metropolitan Mean Hourly Wages And Employment Shares For Overlapping Labor Groupsall occupations: local hourly wage: 41.5, national hourly wage: 33.54; food preparation and serving: local hourly wage: 22.22, national hourly wage: 17.86, local employment share percent: 7.4; building and grounds cleaning: local hourly wage: 23.02, national hourly wage: 19.66, local employment share percent: 3.2; sales: local hourly wage: 36.03, national hourly wage: 26.43, local employment share percent: 7.9; office and administrative support: local hourly wage: 28.72, national hourly wage: 24.79, local employment share percent: 11.7; construction and extraction: local hourly wage: 39.49, national hourly wage: 31.42, local employment share percent: 3; installation maintenance and repair: local hourly wage: 34.5, national hourly wage: 30.44, local employment share percent: 3.1; transportation and material moving: local hourly wage: 27.92, national hourly wage: 23.96, local employment share percent: 7.4 usd per hour and percent
- Queens Housing Stock Age Profile From Census Derived County Estimatesmedian year built: 1,953; built 1939 or earlier percent: 30.3; built 1939 or earlier units: 273,370; total housing units in source: 903,598 mixed
Concepts challenged most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-2.2 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-2.2 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-2.0 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.9 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, 7 concepts changed position. PuroClean moved from #9 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.6 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank7
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.9 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.8 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.7 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.6 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.6 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideStable · tested #1–#2
#2 ActionCOACHStable · tested #1–#2
#3 FASTSIGNSStable · tested #3–#3
#4 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #4–#11
#5 HomeSmilesStable · tested #5–#5
#6 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #4–#12
#7 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #6–#13
#8 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #6–#10
#9 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #7–#13
#10 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #8–#14
#11 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #8–#14
#12 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #7–#13
#13 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #11–#14
#14 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #10–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [3] [4] [15] [16] [14] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [3] [5] [6] [19] [1] [2]Competitive environment: [3] [4] [12] [13]Labor and staffing friction: [7] [8] [5] [6] [1] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [9] [10] [11] [3] [1]Real estate and site feasibility: [4] [12] [13] [11] [22] [20] [21] [1] [2]Sales and customer acquisition: [3] [15] [16] [14] [17] [18] [4]Referral ecosystem: [3] [15] [16] [14] [17] [18] [13]Territory quality: [3] [4] [9] [10] [11] [13] [21] [22] [14]Regulatory and operating friction: [8] [19] [20] [21] [22] [18] [2]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +2.6 pts | — | -0.3 pts | +0.9 pts |
| #2 ActionCOACH | +2.1 pts | — | — | +0.8 pts |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +2.3 pts | — | -0.5 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #4 Jan-Pro International | +2.2 pts | — | -1.3 pts | +0.2 pts |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +1.4 pts | — | -1.0 pts | +0.7 pts |
| #6 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.2 pts | +0.2 pts | -0.4 pts | — |
| #7 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | — | -0.4 pts | — |
| #8 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.5 pts | +0.5 pts | -1.9 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #9 PuroClean | — | +0.4 pts | -1.6 pts | +0.6 pts |
| #10 Rainbow International Restoration | — | +0.4 pts | -1.6 pts | +0.6 pts |
| #11 Workout Anytime | — | — | -0.7 pts | — |
| #12 Aire Serv | +0.4 pts | +0.9 pts | -2.2 pts | — |
| #13 Mr. Rooter | +0.4 pts | +0.5 pts | -2.0 pts | — |
| #14 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +1.0 pts | -2.2 pts | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, ActionCOACH, FASTSIGNS led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to labor and staffing friction. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for Jan-Pro International, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Tiger Adjusters; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Queens, New York
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.4Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Queens, New York
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.4 to 69.4. PuroClean ranked highest at 69.4. Referral ecosystem added 0.6 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 1.6 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.0-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 69.4–69.4
- Category average
- 69.4
PuroClean69.4
Rainbow International Restoration69.4
Metric registry
The 28 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 | 2,358,182people | Population and housing estimates through July 1, 2025; ACS 2020-2024; business data through 2023; Economic Census 2022 | Queens, New York | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | -2percent | Population and housing estimates through July 1, 2025; ACS 2020-2024; business data through 2023; Economic Census 2022 | Queens, New York | Context only | [3] |
| Resident population density in the 2020 Census | 22,124.5people per square mile | Population and housing estimates through July 1, 2025; ACS 2020-2024; business data through 2023; Economic Census 2022 | Queens, New York | Context only | [3] |
| Queens household and housing base | housing units 2025: 934,750; households 2020 2024: 841,003; persons per household 2020 2024: 2.72; owner occupied rate percent 2020 2024: 44.9; building permits 2025: 3,395mixed | Population and housing estimates through July 1, 2025; ACS 2020-2024; business data through 2023; Economic Census 2022 | Queens, New York | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Queens employer and nonemployer business base | employer establishments: 51,188; total employment: 616,045; annual payroll usd thousands: 35,016,828; employment change 2022 2023 percent: 6.2; nonemployer establishments: 286,717mixed | Population and housing estimates through July 1, 2025; ACS 2020-2024; business data through 2023; Economic Census 2022 | Queens, New York | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Queens reported sector sales and receipts | accommodation and food services sales usd thousands: 6,121,389; health care and social assistance revenue usd thousands: 21,652,831; transportation and warehousing revenue usd thousands: 24,366,852; retail sales usd thousands: 23,017,871usd thousands | Population and housing estimates through July 1, 2025; ACS 2020-2024; business data through 2023; Economic Census 2022 | Queens, New York | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Foreign-born and non-English-at-home shares | foreign born percent: 47.6; language other than english at home percent age 5 plus: 55.4percent | Population and housing estimates through July 1, 2025; ACS 2020-2024; business data through 2023; Economic Census 2022 | Queens, New York | Context only | [3] |
| Queens housing-stock age profile from Census-derived county estimates | median year built: 1,953; built 1939 or earlier percent: 30.3; built 1939 or earlier units: 273,370; total housing units in source: 903,598mixed | 2023 American Community Survey five-year estimates | Queens, New York | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Pre-war housing units reporting three or more measured housing problems compared with newer units | prewar units percent: 17; newer units percent: 7.7percent of age cohort | 2023 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey | New York City housing stock; used as a relationship baseline rather than a Queens incidence estimate | Supports modeled relationship | [6] |
| Observed Queens storefront vacancy rate as of April 15, 2026 | 9.5percent of storefronts | Observed storefront status through April 15, 2026 | Queens, New York | Conditional relationship | [4] |
| Queens neighborhood tabulation areas with elevated storefront vacancy | Old Astoria–Hallets Point: 20.1; Sunnyside Yards (North): 17.7; Queensbridge Ravenswood Dutch Kills: 15.9; South Jamaica: 14.5; Springfield Gardens (South): 14.1; Sunnyside: 13.4percent of storefronts | Observed storefront status through April 15, 2026 | Selected Queens neighborhood tabulation areas | Conditional relationship | [4] |
| Persistent and clustered storefront vacancy in named Queens areas | persistent areas named: Astoria, Long Island City, Flushing, Kew Gardens, parts of southeast Queens; more than one in ten former small business storefronts vacant areas: Astoria, parts of southeast Queens; citywide relative vacancy likelihood within 250 feet of a vacancy percent higher: 30mixed | Observed storefront status through April 15, 2026 | Queens neighborhoods with a citywide clustering relationship | Conditional relationship | [4] |
| General minimum wage effective January 1, 2026 | 17usd per hour | Rate effective January 1, 2026 | New York City, including Queens | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Metropolitan mean hourly wages and employment shares for overlapping labor groups | all occupations: local hourly wage: 41.5, national hourly wage: 33.54; food preparation and serving: local hourly wage: 22.22, national hourly wage: 17.86, local employment share percent: 7.4; building and grounds cleaning: local hourly wage: 23.02, national hourly wage: 19.66, local employment share percent: 3.2; sales: local hourly wage: 36.03, national hourly wage: 26.43, local employment share percent: 7.9; office and administrative support: local hourly wage: 28.72, national hourly wage: 24.79, local employment share percent: 11.7; construction and extraction: local hourly wage: 39.49, national hourly wage: 31.42, local employment share percent: 3; installation maintenance and repair: local hourly wage: 34.5, national hourly wage: 30.44, local employment share percent: 3.1; transportation and material moving: local hourly wage: 27.92, national hourly wage: 23.96, local employment share percent: 7.4usd per hour and percent | May 2025; release reissued June 24, 2026 | New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ metropolitan statistical area | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Mean travel time to work for Queens workers age 16 and over | 42.9minutes | Population and housing estimates through July 1, 2025; ACS 2020-2024; business data through 2023; Economic Census 2022 | Queens, New York | Conditional relationship | [3] |
| Commercial trucks must use the New York City Truck Route Network except for direct access to a destination | through routes required for through trips: yes; local routes required for local trips: yes; off route destination access limited to direct approach: yesrule | Current rules accessed July 2026 | New York City truck-route network, including Queens | Conditional relationship | [9] |
| Commercial vehicles are prohibited on major Queens parkways | restricted queens parkways: Belt Parkway, Cross Island Parkway, Jackie Robinson Parkway, most of Grand Central Parkway; limited exceptions require rule confirmation: yesrule | Current rules accessed July 2026 | Queens parkway system | Conditional relationship | [10] |
| Metered overnight commercial-truck parking pilot in the Maspeth Industrial Business Zone | corridor: 56th Road from 43rd Street to 49th Street; session length hours: 8; session price usd: 10; paid days: Monday through Saturday; stated purpose: provide legal parking in an area affected by illegal overnight truck parkingmixed | Pilot announced March 2025 and active subject to current curb rules | Maspeth Industrial Business Zone, Queens | Conditional relationship | [11] |
| New York City industrial market conditions relevant as a borough-level comparison baseline | vacancy percent: 6.9; average asking rent usd per sqft per year: 30.07; class a asking rent usd per sqft per year: 31.46; full year leasing sqft: 3,600,000; leasing change year over year percent: 36; under construction sqft: 1,500,000mixed | Q4 2025 and full-year 2025 | New York City industrial market; not isolated to Queens or small-bay units | Context only | [12] |
| Named Queens Industrial Business Zones eligible under the city program | Jamaica, JFK Industrial Corridor, Long Island City, Maspeth, Ridgeway/SoMA, Steinway, Woodsideindustrial business zones | Current program information accessed July 2026 | Queens Industrial Business Zones | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| Operating scale of two municipal hospitals in Queens | NYC Health + Hospitals/Elmhurst: beds: 545, clinic visits approx: 717,000, emergency visits approx: 136,000, births: 2,359; NYC Health + Hospitals/Queens: beds: 253, clinic visits approx: 499,000, emergency visits approx: 103,500, births: 1,045mixed | Current facility profile accessed July 2026 | Elmhurst and Jamaica, Queens | Supports modeled relationship | [15] [16] |
| Queens Borough President’s stated local-contract target within the JFK redevelopment program | airport transformation value usd: 20,000,000,000; queens business contract target usd: 1,000,000,000; project status: active redevelopment programusd | Current initiatives accessed July 2026 | John F | Supports modeled relationship | [14] |
| Approximate annual value of goods and services procured by New York City | 20,000,000,000usd per year minimum | Current procurement overview accessed July 2026 | New York City procurement accessible to qualified Queens vendors | Supports modeled relationship | [17] |
| City contracting uses vendor registration, PASSPort RFx, invitations, City Record notices, and sometimes prequalification | passport account required to submit: yes; public opportunity search available: yes; rfx process: yes; prequalification may apply: yes; city record publication threshold usd: 100,000process | Current opportunity-search and account requirements accessed July 2026 | New York City procurement accessible to qualified Queens vendors | Supports modeled relationship | [18] |
| Local Law 97 covered-building size thresholds and tightening schedule | single building gross square feet over: 25,000; same tax lot combined gross square feet over: 50,000; initial limits begin: 2,024; stricter limits begin: 2,030; covered buildings list reference date: 2026-03mixed | Compliance beginning in 2024; 2026 Covered Buildings List published March 2026 | New York City covered buildings, including qualifying Queens properties | Supports modeled relationship | [19] |
| Business signs are governed by zoning, construction, special-district, and historic-district rules | permit generally required above square feet: 6; zoning district controls size and location: yes; special district and historic district rules may apply: yes; professional or licensed installer requirements depend on sign characteristics: yesrule | Current zoning and permit guidance accessed July 2026 | New York City properties, including Queens | Conditional relationship | [20] |
| Landmark and historic-district storefront alterations require Landmarks Preservation Commission review | covered properties: individual landmarks, buildings in designated historic districts; permit triggers: new or restored storefront, awning, signage and lighting, certain paint or cleaning work, unenclosed sidewalk cafe; application system: Porticorule | Current permit process accessed July 2026 | Designated Queens landmark properties and historic districts | Conditional relationship | [21] |
| FEMA flood maps establish property-specific flood-risk, insurance, and building-code gates | high risk annual probability percent: 1; thirty year high risk probability percent: 26; property level zone required: yes; current and preliminary map differences require review: yesmixed | Current and preliminary flood-map framework accessed July 2026 | Mapped floodplains in Queens and New York City | Conditional relationship | [22] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects that apply without an unresolved site, territory, customer, or project gate.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 73.20 after target-market demand +2.5 pts, referral ecosystem +0.9 pts, and labor and staffing friction -0.3 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Franchise Opportunities in Tier-1 U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Structural Constraints and Hidden Municipal Costs: A Forensic Audit of Ten U.S. JurisdictionsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3QuickFacts: Queens County, New York
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Resident population density in the 2020 Census, Queens household and housing base, and Queens employer and nonemployer business base
- 4Who’s Minding the Storefronts? An Analysis of Storefront Vacancies in New York City
Used for: Observed Queens storefront vacancy rate as of April 15, 2026, Queens neighborhood tabulation areas with elevated storefront vacancy, and Persistent and clustered storefront vacancy in named Queens areas
- 5Counties with the Oldest Homes in New York
Used for: Queens housing-stock age profile from Census-derived county estimates
- 6Taking Stock: New York City’s Housing Stock
Used for: Pre-war housing units reporting three or more measured housing problems compared with newer units
- 7Occupational Employment and Wages in New York-Newark-Jersey City — May 2025
Used for: Metropolitan mean hourly wages and employment shares for overlapping labor groups
- 8New York State’s Minimum Wage
Used for: General minimum wage effective January 1, 2026
- 9Truck Routing
Used for: Commercial trucks must use the New York City Truck Route Network except for direct access to a destination
- 10Parkway Truck Restrictions
Used for: Commercial vehicles are prohibited on major Queens parkways
- 11Safer Truck Parking for Safer Streets: NYC DOT Announces Launch of Metered Pay-by-App, Overnight Truck Parking Pilot Inside Industrial Business Zones in Three Boroughs
Used for: Metered overnight commercial-truck parking pilot in the Maspeth Industrial Business Zone
- 12New York City Industrial & Logistics Figures Q4 2025
Used for: New York City industrial market conditions relevant as a borough-level comparison baseline
- 13Industrial Business Zone Relocation Credit
Used for: Named Queens Industrial Business Zones eligible under the city program
- 14Economic Development
Used for: Queens Borough President’s stated local-contract target within the JFK redevelopment program
- 15NYC Health + Hospitals/Elmhurst
Used for: Operating scale of two municipal hospitals in Queens
- 16NYC Health + Hospitals/Queens
Used for: Operating scale of two municipal hospitals in Queens
- 17Procurement 101
Used for: Approximate annual value of goods and services procured by New York City
- 18Find Contract Opportunities
Used for: City contracting uses vendor registration, PASSPort RFx, invitations, City Record notices, and sometimes prequalification
- 19LL97 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction
Used for: Local Law 97 covered-building size thresholds and tightening schedule
- 20Installing a Business Sign: A Step-by-Step Guide
Used for: Business signs are governed by zoning, construction, special-district, and historic-district rules
- 21Storefronts
Used for: Landmark and historic-district storefront alterations require Landmarks Preservation Commission review
- 22About FEMA Flood Maps
Used for: FEMA flood maps establish property-specific flood-risk, insurance, and building-code gates
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.