69.6 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Riverside, California
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Riverside, California. Household service 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
17Primary 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
0.7 points average among 13 affected concepts
0.8 points average reduction among 13 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 11 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Riverside, California
City Wide, HomeSmiles, and ActionCOACH produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Household service demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 8 exposed concepts, adding 0.5 points on average. Skilled-trade labor competition was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.8 points on average. Mister Sparky Electric was especially relationship-sensitive: removing skilled-trade labor competition moved it from #13 to #8 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 | 72.4Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.0 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.8 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsReferral ecosystem | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.0 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 69.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Riverside, California
Modest measured housing-unit growth expands the residential service base
This relationship affected 8 concepts and added 0.5 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Growth in total housing units from April 2020 to January 2026: absolute units: 2,785; percent: 2.778 housing units and percent. [5]
Metropolitan skilled-trade wages exceed national occupational-group averages
This relationship affected 10 concepts and reduced 0.8 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Metropolitan labor-market conditions in June 2026: unemployment rate percent: 5.3; total nonfarm jobs thousands: 1,721.7; year over year nonfarm change percent: 0.6; construction jobs thousands: 108; construction year over year change percent: -4.7; trade transport utilities jobs thousands: 448.8; education health jobs thousands: 358.6; education health year over year change percent: 7.1; additional values omitted percent and thousands of jobs. [9] [8]
Approximately 76 percent of Riverside housing was built before 1990, and the Housing Element projected 86 percent of units would exceed 30 years of age by 2029.
The age profile supports HVAC, plumbing, electrical, inspection, restoration, and rehabilitation demand, but it does not establish that every property retains original systems or is substandard. Mapped shrink-swell and liquefaction exposure adds a parcel-specific property mechanism, while above-national metropolitan skilled-trade wages can increase execution complexity for labor-dependent operators. [6] [7] [8] [1]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Modest measured housing-unit growth expands the residential service base1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
Several overlapping frontline and administrative occupation groups carry metropolitan wage premiums1 modeled effect
Frontline labor pressureLabor and staffing friction
Metropolitan skilled-trade wages exceed national occupational-group averages1 modeled effect
Skilled-trade labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
Large university, county, municipal, education, and military institutions create institution-specific account demand1 modeled effect
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Large healthcare systems and high healthcare receipts support institution-specific facility-service demand1 modeled effect
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
Named institutional anchors and municipal vendor systems support relationship-based selling while larger public purchases use formal procurement3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- University of California, Riverside fall 2025 enrollment: total: 27,633; undergraduate: 24,034; graduate: 3,599; year over year change percent: 4.7; ten year change percent: 20.6 students and percent [11]
- City of Riverside procurement quote and bid thresholds: under 10000 usd: telephone quotes; 10000 to 50000 usd: written informal quotes; over 50000 usd: formal bid procedures for goods, services, and public works; local preference percent up to: 5; vendor access: potential vendor and contractor list, PlanetBids registration procurement rule summary [12]
- Selected large public employers listed by the City of Riverside: County of Riverside: 24,290; March Air Reserve Base: 9,600; University of California Riverside: 8,593; Riverside University Health System: 8,000; Riverside Unified School District: 5,003; City of Riverside: 2,336; Riverside Community College District: 2,100; Alvord Unified School District: 1,898; additional values omitted employees reported by source [10]
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 alignment72.4
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +2.0 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 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 | +2.0 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.37 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 | +2.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 72.37 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.4 |
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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.8 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.3 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.95 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 | +1.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | 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 | 70.95 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.9 |
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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#5
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand | +0.4 pts | |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.90 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 | 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 | +0.5 |
| 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 | 70.90 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.9 |
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
- Referral ecosystem +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#9
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.72 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 | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| 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 | 70.72 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#8
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.70 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 | +0.8 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.70 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#6
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.0 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.4 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.0 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.1 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.57 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 | +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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.1 |
| 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 | 70.57 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#14
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.2 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 |
| -1.2 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.13 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 | -1.2 |
| 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 | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.13 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#11
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.7 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.4 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.12 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
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 | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.4 |
| 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 | 69.88 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#13
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 pts | |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.15 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 | +0.2 |
| 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 | 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 | 69.85 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#14
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 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 |
| -0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.18 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 |
| 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 | 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 | 69.82 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
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 -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#13
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.2 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 |
| -1.2 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.20 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 | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.2 |
| 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 | 69.80 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
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 -1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -1.1 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 | -1.1 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand | +0.3 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.29 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 | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.1 |
| 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 | +0.4 |
| 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 | 69.71 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.5 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.39 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 | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| 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 | 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 | 69.61 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -1.1 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 | -1.1 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.49 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 | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.1 |
| 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 | +0.4 |
| 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 | 69.51 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.5 |
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 -1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#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 | +2.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 72.37 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectPositive local support
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 13 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #6 to #13, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected+0.7 pts
Average across all concepts+0.7 pts
Concepts changing rank13
What we observed
- Selected 2022 City Business Sales And Receiptsretail sales usd thousands: 6,856,078; accommodation food sales usd thousands: 1,223,158; healthcare social assistance receipts usd thousands: 4,184,159; transportation warehousing receipts usd thousands: 608,929
- Total Housing Units On April 1, 2020100,255 housing units
- Estimated Total Housing Units On January 1, 2026103,040 housing units
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+2.0 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.4 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.3 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.8 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.7 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, 11 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #8 to #13, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank11
What we observed
- Housing Stock Built Before 199076 percent of housing units approximate
- Housing Units By Construction Period2014 or later percent: 0.6; 2010 2013 percent: 1.8; 2000 2009 percent: 11.9; 1990 1999 percent: 10.1; 1980 1989 percent: 16.6; 1970 1979 percent: 19.2; 1960 1969 percent: 12.1; 1950 1959 percent: 15.7; additional values omitted percent of housing units
- Housing Units Projected To Exceed 30 Years Of Age By 2029units: 87,216; share percent: 86 housing units and percent
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.7 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.5 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.5 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.5 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.2 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, 12 concepts changed position. Tiger Adjusters moved from #9 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected-0.8 pts
Average across all concepts-0.8 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Selected Frontline And Administrative Occupational Group Wages And Employment Sharesfood preparation serving: employment share percent: 9.9, mean hourly wage usd: 20.57, us mean hourly wage usd: 17.86; building grounds cleaning maintenance: employment share percent: 2.9, mean hourly wage usd: 22.06, us mean hourly wage usd: 19.66; office administrative support: employment share percent: 9.9, mean hourly wage usd: 26.07, us mean hourly wage usd: 24.79 percent and usd per hour
- Transportation And Material Moving Occupational Concentrationemployment: 272,380; employment share percent: 15.9; us employment share percent: 8.8; location quotient: 1.8; mean hourly wage usd: 23.93; us mean hourly wage usd: 23.96 jobs percent location quotient and usd per hour
- Selected Skilled Trade Occupational Group Wages And Employment Sharesconstruction extraction: employment share percent: 4.8, mean hourly wage usd: 34.66, us mean hourly wage usd: 31.42; installation maintenance repair: employment share percent: 3.6, mean hourly wage usd: 32.77, us mean hourly wage usd: 30.44 percent and usd per hour
Concepts challenged most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-1.4 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-1.3 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-1.2 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.2 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.1 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, 12 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #7 to #11, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank12
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.6 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.5 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.4 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.4 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 HomeSmilesModerately sensitive · tested #2–#5
#3 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #1–#9
#4 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #2–#8
#5 FASTSIGNSModerately sensitive · tested #4–#6
#6 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #3–#14
#7 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #4–#11
#8 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #5–#13
#9 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #7–#14
#10 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13
#11 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #7–#12
#12 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #9–#13
#13 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #10–#14
#14 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #8–#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: [4] [5] [10] [11] [12] [23] [22] [1] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [6] [7] [5] [8] [1]Competitive environment: [4] [22] [19] [10] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [8] [9] [10] [6] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [18] [4] [23] [24] [3] [1]Real estate and site feasibility: [19] [20] [21] [22] [15] [16] [18] [13] [14] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [12] [10] [11] [4] [3]Referral ecosystem: [10] [11] [12] [4]Territory quality: [15] [16] [7] [5] [3] [24]Regulatory and operating friction: [17] [13] [14] [15] [16] [18] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +2.0 pts | — | -0.2 pts | +0.6 pts |
| #2 HomeSmiles | +1.3 pts | — | -0.8 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #3 ActionCOACH | +0.4 pts | — | — | +0.5 pts |
| #4 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.7 pts | +0.2 pts | -0.2 pts | — |
| #5 FASTSIGNS | +0.8 pts | — | -0.4 pts | +0.3 pts |
| #6 Jan-Pro International | +1.4 pts | — | -1.0 pts | +0.1 pts |
| #7 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.4 pts | +0.5 pts | -1.2 pts | +0.3 pts |
| #8 Aire Serv | +0.5 pts | +0.7 pts | -1.4 pts | — |
| #9 Tiger Adjusters | +0.2 pts | — | -0.3 pts | — |
| #10 Workout Anytime | +0.4 pts | — | -0.6 pts | — |
| #11 Mr. Rooter | +0.5 pts | +0.5 pts | -1.2 pts | — |
| #12 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.3 pts | +0.2 pts | -1.1 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #13 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.5 pts | +0.5 pts | -1.3 pts | — |
| #14 PuroClean | — | +0.2 pts | -1.1 pts | +0.4 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, HomeSmiles, ActionCOACH 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 ActionCOACH, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Jan-Pro International; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Riverside, California
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.6Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Riverside, California
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.5 to 69.7. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 69.7. Referral ecosystem added 0.4 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 1.1 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.2-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 69.5–69.7
- Category average
- 69.6
Rainbow International Restoration69.7
PuroClean69.5
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 | 323,057people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS and 2022 Economic Census measures as labeled | Riverside, California | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 2.4percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS and 2022 Economic Census measures as labeled | Riverside, California | Context only | [4] |
| Estimated households | 95,176households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS and 2022 Economic Census measures as labeled | Riverside, California | Context only | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing-unit rate | 56.8percent of occupied housing units | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS and 2022 Economic Census measures as labeled | Riverside, California | Context only | [4] |
| Median household income and selected monthly housing costs | median household income usd: 91,045; median gross rent usd: 1,914; median selected monthly owner cost with mortgage usd: 2,438; persons in poverty percent: 12.2mixed currency and percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS and 2022 Economic Census measures as labeled | Riverside, California | Context only | [4] |
| Selected 2022 city business sales and receipts | retail sales usd thousands: 6,856,078; accommodation food sales usd thousands: 1,223,158; healthcare social assistance receipts usd thousands: 4,184,159; transportation warehousing receipts usd thousands: 608,929usd thousands | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS and 2022 Economic Census measures as labeled | Riverside, California | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Mean travel time to work | 31.3minutes | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS and 2022 Economic Census measures as labeled | Riverside, California workers age 16 and older | Conditional relationship | [4] |
| Total housing units on April 1, 2020 | 100,255housing units | April 1, 2020 and January 1 annual estimates through 2026 | Riverside, California | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Estimated total housing units on January 1, 2026 | 103,040housing units | April 1, 2020 and January 1 annual estimates through 2026 | Riverside, California | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Growth in total housing units from April 2020 to January 2026 | absolute units: 2,785; percent: 2.778housing units and percent | April 1, 2020 and January 1 annual estimates through 2026 | Riverside, California | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Estimated occupied housing units and vacancy rate on January 1, 2026 | occupied units: 98,949; vacancy rate percent: 3.9703; persons per household: 3.1267mixed count and percent | April 1, 2020 and January 1 annual estimates through 2026 | Riverside, California | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Housing stock built before 1990 | 76percent of housing units approximate | Housing-age analysis based principally on 2014-2018 ACS estimates; planning horizon through 2029 | Riverside, California housing stock | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Housing units by construction period | 2014 or later percent: 0.6; 2010 2013 percent: 1.8; 2000 2009 percent: 11.9; 1990 1999 percent: 10.1; 1980 1989 percent: 16.6; 1970 1979 percent: 19.2; 1960 1969 percent: 12.1; 1950 1959 percent: 15.7; additional values omittedpercent of housing units | Housing-age analysis based principally on 2014-2018 ACS estimates; planning horizon through 2029 | Riverside, California housing stock | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Housing units projected to exceed 30 years of age by 2029 | units: 87,216; share percent: 86housing units and percent | Housing-age analysis based principally on 2014-2018 ACS estimates; planning horizon through 2029 | Riverside, California housing stock | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Housing age indicates potential rehabilitation demand but does not prove substandard condition or original systems | The Housing Element states that older units may require rehabilitation and system updates while cautioning that age alone does not establish substandard condition.text | Housing-age analysis based principally on 2014-2018 ACS estimates; planning horizon through 2029 | Riverside, California housing stock | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Mapped shrink-swell soil exposure is concentrated but not confined to western and southern portions of the planning area | primary areas: west of Riverside Municipal Airport, Lake Mathews drainage area within the Sphere of Influence; additional condition: Shrink-swell potential may occur elsewhere in the city and Sphere of Influence.mapped geographic condition | General Plan safety analysis current through report preparation | City of Riverside and Sphere of Influence | Conditional relationship | [7] |
| Primary liquefaction-susceptibility areas identified in the Public Safety Element | areas: Santa Ana River corridor, broad area south and west of Riverside Municipal Airport, western Riverside spanning La Sierra Avenue, smaller area along the southern city boundary; potentially affected assets: buildings, buried pipes, storage tanksmapped geographic condition | General Plan safety analysis current through report preparation | Mapped liquefaction-susceptibility areas in Riverside | Conditional relationship | [7] |
| Western Riverside County TUMF schedule effective July 1, 2026 | retail usd per sqft: 7.92; service usd per sqft: 5.02; office usd per sqft: 2.51; industrial usd per sqft: 2.39; multifamily usd per dwelling unit: 8,021; single family under 1800 sqft usd per dwelling unit: 12,705; single family 1801 2299 sqft usd per dwelling unit: 14,292; single family 2300 2699 sqft usd per dwelling unit: 15,881; additional values omittedusd by land use metric | Program rules current when accessed August 2026 | Western Riverside County TUMF program area | Context only | [13] [14] |
| TUMF generally applies to new development unless exempt or otherwise determined under program and local rules | project status: new development; fee basis: land use and development size; exemptions and final determination: Program exemptions and local-agency administration apply.rule summary | Program rules current when accessed August 2026 | Western Riverside County TUMF program area | Context only | [13] |
| Approved specific plans listed by the City of Riverside | 20approved specific plans | Current approved specific-plan inventory accessed August 2026 | Riverside, California | Conditional relationship | [15] |
| Hunter Business Park Specific Plan can be more restrictive than Title 19 and limits the Garden Industrial District to Manufacturing Park uses | plan area: Hunter Business Park Specific Plan; district: Garden Industrial District; allowed base zone: Manufacturing Park (MP); relationship to title 19: The specific plan may impose standards more restrictive than Title 19 and cannot permit uses prohibited by Title 19.rule summary | Current plan document posted in 2024 | Hunter Business Park Specific Plan area | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| Selected Riverside sign-permit and site thresholds | pylon sign minimum commercial complex acres: 10; freeway oriented sign minimum commercial complex acres: 9; freeway oriented sign requires: Minor Conditional Use Permit; sign program required minimum lease spaces: 3; permit stages: submittal, Planning review, Building review, permit issuance; selected prohibitions: moving signs, billboards, pole signs unless allowed by an applicable plan or policyrule summary | 2026 sign-ordinance guidance | Riverside sign-regulation area | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| Public-street parking restriction for heavy commercial vehicles and trailers | minimum gross vehicle weight lbs: 10,000; covered vehicle classes: commercial vehicles at or above the threshold, commercial trailers, commercial semitrailers; general rule: Parking on public streets is prohibited except on streets designated by signs for commercial-vehicle parking.rule summary | Municipal-code guidance posted in 2018; current applicability should be reconfirmed before site selection | Riverside public streets and designated exceptions | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| Selected large public employers listed by the City of Riverside | County of Riverside: 24,290; March Air Reserve Base: 9,600; University of California Riverside: 8,593; Riverside University Health System: 8,000; Riverside Unified School District: 5,003; City of Riverside: 2,336; Riverside Community College District: 2,100; Alvord Unified School District: 1,898; additional values omittedemployees reported by source | Current employer list accessed August 2026; underlying employer-count dates are not stated on the page | Riverside-area public institutions | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Selected large healthcare employers listed by the City of Riverside | Kaiser Permanente: 5,846; Riverside Community Hospital: 2,200; Riverside Medical Clinic: 985; Doctors Hospital of Riverside: 790; Riverside University Health System: 8,000employees reported by source | Current employer list accessed August 2026; underlying employer-count dates are not stated on the page | Riverside-area healthcare institutions | Used in scoring | [10] |
| University of California, Riverside fall 2025 enrollment | total: 27,633; undergraduate: 24,034; graduate: 3,599; year over year change percent: 4.7; ten year change percent: 20.6students and percent | Fall 2025 enrollment | University of California, Riverside | Used in scoring | [11] |
| City of Riverside procurement quote and bid thresholds | under 10000 usd: telephone quotes; 10000 to 50000 usd: written informal quotes; over 50000 usd: formal bid procedures for goods, services, and public works; local preference percent up to: 5; vendor access: potential vendor and contractor list, PlanetBids registrationprocurement rule summary | Current procurement guidance accessed August 2026 | City of Riverside | Used in scoring | [12] |
| Selected frontline and administrative occupational-group wages and employment shares | food preparation serving: employment share percent: 9.9, mean hourly wage usd: 20.57, us mean hourly wage usd: 17.86; building grounds cleaning maintenance: employment share percent: 2.9, mean hourly wage usd: 22.06, us mean hourly wage usd: 19.66; office administrative support: employment share percent: 9.9, mean hourly wage usd: 26.07, us mean hourly wage usd: 24.79percent and usd per hour | May 2025 | Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Transportation and material-moving occupational concentration | employment: 272,380; employment share percent: 15.9; us employment share percent: 8.8; location quotient: 1.8; mean hourly wage usd: 23.93; us mean hourly wage usd: 23.96jobs percent location quotient and usd per hour | May 2025 | Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Selected skilled-trade occupational-group wages and employment shares | construction extraction: employment share percent: 4.8, mean hourly wage usd: 34.66, us mean hourly wage usd: 31.42; installation maintenance repair: employment share percent: 3.6, mean hourly wage usd: 32.77, us mean hourly wage usd: 30.44percent and usd per hour | May 2025 | Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Metropolitan labor-market conditions in June 2026 | unemployment rate percent: 5.3; total nonfarm jobs thousands: 1,721.7; year over year nonfarm change percent: 0.6; construction jobs thousands: 108; construction year over year change percent: -4.7; trade transport utilities jobs thousands: 448.8; education health jobs thousands: 358.6; education health year over year change percent: 7.1; additional values omittedpercent and thousands of jobs | Labor force and payroll data through June 2026 | Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Current Inland Empire industrial-market vacancy and asking rents | CBRE core vacancy percent: 7.4; CBRE west vacancy percent: 5.9; CBRE east vacancy percent: 9; CBRE average asking rent usd per sqft per month NNN: 1.08; Cushman market vacancy percent: 8.8; Cushman availability percent: 12; Cushman available sqft millions: 78.5; Cushman average asking rent usd per sqft per month NNN: 1.03; additional values omittedpercent sqft millions and usd per sqft per month | Second quarter 2026 | Inland Empire industrial market | Context only | [19] [20] [21] |
| Share of year-to-date industrial leasing activity in buildings at least 100,000 square feet | at least 100000 sqft percent: 83; 100000 to 499999 sqft percent: 40; 500000 plus sqft percent: 43percent of year to date leasing activity | Second quarter 2026 and year-to-date leasing activity | Inland Empire industrial market | Context only | [20] |
| Inland Empire retail asking rent and market characterization in Q2 2026 | average asking rent usd per sqft per month NNN: 1.69; market characterization: balancedusd per sqft per month and text | Second quarter 2026 | Inland Empire retail market | Context only | [22] |
| Riverside County inflow, outflow, and within-county commuting counts | commute out of county: 299,953; commute into county: 124,580; live and work in county: 725,518workers | 2016-2020 American Community Survey commuting flows | Riverside County, California | Context only | [23] |
| 91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project had not entered construction as of August 2026 | status: pre construction; studies and design through: fall 2026; earliest construction: 2028project status | Project status accessed August 2026 | State Route 91 eastbound corridor in the Riverside area | Context only | [24] |
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 72.37 after target-market demand +2.0 pts, referral ecosystem +0.6 pts, and labor and staffing friction -0.2 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.
- 1The Utility Delta: A Structural Audit of Ten U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Structural Constraints and Hidden Costs: A Forensic Municipal AuditInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - Riverside through CharlotteInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4QuickFacts: Riverside city, California
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Estimated households, Owner-occupied housing-unit rate, and Median household income and selected monthly housing costs
- 5E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2026
Used for: Total housing units on April 1, 2020, Estimated total housing units on January 1, 2026, Growth in total housing units from April 2020 to January 2026, and Estimated occupied housing units and vacancy rate on January 1, 2026
- 6Final Certified Housing Element Technical Background Report
Used for: Housing stock built before 1990, Housing units by construction period, Housing units projected to exceed 30 years of age by 2029, and Housing age indicates potential rehabilitation demand but does not prove substandard condition or original systems
- 7Final Public Safety Element Technical Background Report
Used for: Mapped shrink-swell soil exposure is concentrated but not confined to western and southern portions of the planning area and Primary liquefaction-susceptibility areas identified in the Public Safety Element
- 8Occupational Employment and Wages in Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario — May 2025
Used for: Selected frontline and administrative occupational-group wages and employment shares, Transportation and material-moving occupational concentration, and Selected skilled-trade occupational-group wages and employment shares
- 9Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Economy at a Glance
Used for: Metropolitan labor-market conditions in June 2026
- 10Top Employers
Used for: Selected large public employers listed by the City of Riverside and Selected large healthcare employers listed by the City of Riverside
- 11Campus Facts Tables
Used for: University of California, Riverside fall 2025 enrollment
- 12Purchasing Division
Used for: City of Riverside procurement quote and bid thresholds
- 13Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program
Used for: Western Riverside County TUMF schedule effective July 1, 2026 and TUMF generally applies to new development unless exempt or otherwise determined under program and local rules
- 14Public Works Committee Agenda Packet — TUMF Schedule Effective July 1, 2026
Used for: Western Riverside County TUMF schedule effective July 1, 2026
- 15Specific Plans
Used for: Approved specific plans listed by the City of Riverside
- 16Hunter Business Park Specific Plan
Used for: Hunter Business Park Specific Plan can be more restrictive than Title 19 and limits the Garden Industrial District to Manufacturing Park uses
- 17Riverside Sign Ordinance Field Guide
Used for: Selected Riverside sign-permit and site thresholds
- 18Commercial Vehicle Parking — Riverside Municipal Code 10.52.155
Used for: Public-street parking restriction for heavy commercial vehicles and trailers
- 19Inland Empire Industrial Figures Q2 2026
Used for: Current Inland Empire industrial-market vacancy and asking rents
- 20Inland Empire Industrial MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Current Inland Empire industrial-market vacancy and asking rents and Share of year-to-date industrial leasing activity in buildings at least 100,000 square feet
- 21Inland Empire Industrial Research Report Q2 2026
Used for: Current Inland Empire industrial-market vacancy and asking rents
- 22Inland Empire Retail Figures Q2 2026
Used for: Inland Empire retail asking rent and market characterization in Q2 2026
- 23Riverside County Commuting Patterns, 2016-2020
Used for: Riverside County inflow, outflow, and within-county commuting counts
- 2491 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project
Used for: 91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project had not entered construction as of August 2026
Before contacting a franchisor
Complete the next layer of due diligence
- Confirm the exact protected territory and neighboring units.
- Review the current Franchise Disclosure Document.
- Validate local staffing, licensing, insurance, and service-base assumptions.
- Obtain location, vehicle, buildout, or working-capital estimates.
- Speak with current and former franchisees.
- Build a candidate-specific financial scenario.
Apply the analysis to your situation
Review how these market findings apply to your budget, role, and proposed territory.
The city score does not include your experience, capital structure, time commitment, financing, or exact territory.
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.