70.6 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in St. Louis, Missouri
We compared 14 franchise concepts for St. Louis, Missouri. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Legacy-system service complexity 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
28Sources used
15Primary sources
35Local 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 11 affected concepts
0.4 points average reduction among 7 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 7 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for St. Louis, Missouri
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, 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 0.6 points on average. One important asymmetry was that the same local condition supported replacement and repair demand while also creating legacy-system service complexity. 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 | 72.5Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +1.9 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 71.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 71.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.1 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in St. Louis, Missouri
Substantial local commerce and institutional spending support business-account demand despite resident population decline
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 0.6 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Accommodation and food services sales in 2022: 1,538,276,000 usd. [4]
Large concentrations of pre-1940 and century-age housing support repair demand while increasing system and trade complexity
The same local condition created complementary effects: replacement and repair demand supported exposed concepts while legacy-system service complexity constrained others. [5] [8]
asset-light-b2b
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was target-market demand, while the main constraint was property replacement-cycle demand. [12] [4] [26] [27] [13] [28]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Substantial local commerce and institutional spending support business-account demand despite resident population decline1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Large concentrations of pre-1940 and century-age housing support repair demand while increasing system and trade complexity3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Housing units in the 2024 ACS 1-year profile: 174,694 housing units [5]
- Neighborhoods with a median housing age of at least 100 years: relationship: majority of neighborhoods; median housing age threshold: 100 years and share category [8]
- Housing units built before 1940 in a Census-derived city summary: 57.7 percent of housing units [7]
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Legacy-system service complexityLabor and staffing friction
Large institutions support referral development but use formal procurement pathways3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 4 sources
- City quote and bid submission requires portal registration that can take up to seven days, plus current business-license and tax status: registration time maximum days: 7; business license required: yes; city payroll and sales tax current required: yes process requirements [26] [27]
- Washington University employees reported for the St. Louis regional impact report: 23,434 employees [13]
- BJC Medical Group physician and location network: doctors and specialists minimum: 600; locations minimum: 145 network totals [12]
Professional and institutional relationship densityReferral ecosystem
Institutional procurement-cycle frictionSales and customer acquisition
Curb loading, vehicle storage, and customer parking require property-level confirmation in dense historic and form-based districts1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
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 alignment72.5
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.9 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 | +1.9 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +2.51 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 72.51 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.5 |
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
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#1
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.7
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.6 pts Target-market demandNo 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.6 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.1 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.71 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 | +1.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 71.71 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.7 |
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
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#8
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.6
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +1.4 pts Target-market demandNo 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.4 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.63 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
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 | +1.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 71.63 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.6 |
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
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#7
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.6
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +1.1 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 | +1.1 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.58 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 | +1.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 71.58 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.6 |
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
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#4
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.4
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.9 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 | +0.9 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.38 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 71.38 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.4 |
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
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#5
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -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 |
|---|---|---|
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 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 | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| 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 | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.63 |
| 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
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#7
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.53 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 | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| 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 | 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 | 70.53 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
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
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#9
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -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 |
|---|---|---|
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.53 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 | +0.3 |
| 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 | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.53 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
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
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#10
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.2 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.1 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.21 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 | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| 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 | 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 | 70.21 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
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
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#12
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.1 pts Target-market demandNo 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 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 | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 70.15 |
| 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
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#13
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.10 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| 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 | 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 | 70.10 |
| 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
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 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
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 | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| 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 | 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
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
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 | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.18 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 | +0.4 |
| 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
- Limited
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#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 | +1.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 72.51 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectPositive local support
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 11 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #2 to #8, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted11 of 14
Average among affected+0.7 pts
Average across all concepts+0.6 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Total Retail Sales In 20223,354,635,000 usd
- Health Care And Social Assistance Receipts Or Revenue In 20226,194,135,000 usd
- Accommodation And Food Services Sales In 20221,538,276,000 usd
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.9 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.6 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+1.4 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+1.1 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.9 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #7 to #9, 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 rank6
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.4 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.4 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.4 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.4 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.3 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
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 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 8 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #12 to #9, 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 rank8
Concepts challenged most
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-0.6 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.5 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.5 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.2 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 #8 to #12, 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 rank7
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–#1
#2 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#8
#3 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #3–#7
#4 ActionCOACHStable · tested #4–#4
#5 HomeSmilesStable · tested #5–#5
#6 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #2–#7
#7 ZOOM DRAINModerately sensitive · tested #6–#9
#8 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #3–#10
#9 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #6–#12
#10 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13
#11 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #9–#12
#12 Aire ServModerately sensitive · tested #10–#13
#13 Workout AnytimeModerately sensitive · tested #11–#14
#14 Mister Sparky ElectricModerately sensitive · tested #11–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [5] [13] [12] [15] [17] [1] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [1]Competitive environment: [4] [15] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [14] [12] [9] [10] [2] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [23] [20] [24] [25] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [15] [16] [17] [21] [19] [1] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [13] [12] [26] [27] [28] [4]Referral ecosystem: [13] [12] [26] [28]Territory quality: [24] [25] [15] [16] [17] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [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 | +1.9 pts | — | — | +0.6 pts |
| #2 Jan-Pro International | +1.6 pts | — | — | +0.2 pts |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +1.4 pts | — | — | +0.3 pts |
| #4 ActionCOACH | +1.1 pts | — | — | +0.5 pts |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +0.9 pts | — | — | +0.5 pts |
| #6 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.1 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.2 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #7 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.2 pts | +0.4 pts | -0.5 pts | +0.3 pts |
| #8 PuroClean | — | +0.3 pts | -0.2 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #9 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.1 pts | +0.2 pts | -0.1 pts | — |
| #10 Tiger Adjusters | +0.1 pts | — | — | — |
| #11 Mr. Rooter | +0.2 pts | +0.4 pts | -0.5 pts | — |
| #12 Aire Serv | +0.2 pts | +0.4 pts | -0.5 pts | — |
| #13 Workout Anytime | — | — | — | — |
| #14 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.4 pts | -0.6 pts | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, 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, FASTSIGNS, Rainbow International Restoration; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in St. Louis, Missouri
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.6Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in St. Louis, Missouri
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.5 to 70.6. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.6. Referral ecosystem added 0.4 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.2 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.1-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.5–70.6
- Category average
- 70.6
Rainbow International Restoration70.6
PuroClean70.5
Metric registry
The 35 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 | 278,144people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic census metrics | St | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | -7.7percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic census metrics | St | Context only | [4] |
| Population density in 2020 | 4,885people per square mile | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic census metrics | St | Context only | [4] |
| Households in the 2020-2024 QuickFacts period | 144,891households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic census metrics | St | Context only | [4] |
| Housing units in the 2024 ACS 1-year profile | 174,694housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates | St | Supports modeled relationship | [5] |
| Occupied and vacant housing units in the 2020 Census | total housing units: 173,479; occupied housing units: 144,870; vacant housing units: 28,609housing units | 2020 Decennial Census | St | Context only | [6] |
| Housing units built before 1940 in a Census-derived city summary | 57.7percent of housing units | Census-derived city statistics; underlying ACS vintage not stated on page | St | Supports modeled relationship | [7] |
| Housing units built after 2000 in a Census-derived city summary | 6.3percent of housing units | Census-derived city statistics; underlying ACS vintage not stated on page | St | Supports modeled relationship | [7] |
| Neighborhoods with a median housing age of at least 100 years | relationship: majority of neighborhoods; median housing age threshold: 100years and share category | City building-age data available in 2019 | City of St | Supports modeled relationship | [8] |
| Moisture and freeze-thaw cycles can spall historic brick and deteriorate mortar joints, while incompatible repointing can damage masonry | materials: historic brick, mortar joints; mechanisms: moisture entry, freeze thaw expansion, spalling, mortar deterioration, incompatible repointing damagedescriptive | Historic-masonry preservation guidance current when accessed | Historic brick masonry applicable to St | Context only | [9] [10] [11] |
| Total retail sales in 2022 | 3,354,635,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic census metrics | St | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts or revenue in 2022 | 6,194,135,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic census metrics | St | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Accommodation and food services sales in 2022 | 1,538,276,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic census metrics | St | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Washington University employees reported for the St. Louis regional impact report | 23,434employees | Fiscal year 2025 regional impact | St | Used in scoring | [13] |
| Washington University direct regional spending | 4,100,000,000usd | Fiscal year 2025 regional impact | St | Used in scoring | [13] |
| BJC Health aggregate system scale | hospitals: 24; employees: 48,162; physicians: 6,077; staffed beds: 4,535system totals | 2025 aggregate system data unless otherwise indicated | BJC Health across Missouri, southern Illinois, eastern Kansas, and the Midwest | Used in scoring | [12] |
| BJC Medical Group physician and location network | doctors and specialists minimum: 600; locations minimum: 145network totals | 2025 aggregate system data unless otherwise indicated | Greater St | Used in scoring | [12] |
| Selected frontline and administrative mean hourly wages compared with national averages | food preparation and serving: st louis: 16.57, united states: 17.32; building and grounds: st louis: 18.45, united states: 19.01; sales: st louis: 24.16, united states: 26; office and administrative: st louis: 23.62, united states: 24.12; transportation and material moving: st louis: 22.15, united states: 23.44usd per hour | May 2024 | St | Context only | [14] |
| Construction and maintenance mean hourly wages compared with national averages | construction and extraction: st louis: 34.11, united states: 30.73; installation maintenance and repair: st louis: 29.69, united states: 29.63usd per hour | May 2024 | St | Context only | [14] |
| Overall office vacancy in Q2 2026 | 18.4percent | Q2 2026 | St | Conditional relationship | [15] |
| Overall retail vacancy in Q2 2026 | 6.1percent | Q2 2026 | St | Conditional relationship | [15] |
| Published overall industrial vacancy estimates differed by provider in Q2 2026 | cushman wakefield: 5.1; cbre: 7.1percent | Q2 2026 | St | Conditional relationship | [15] [16] |
| Industrial vacancy growth was linked to large-user rightsizing and migration toward modern bulk facilities | vacancy percent cbre: 7.1; average asking rent nnn: 5.46; leasing sqft: 1,610,000; speculative assets under construction: 1mixed | Q2 2026 | St | Context only | [16] |
| Downtown office vacancy was concentrated in a limited set of buildings in the Brookings study | buildings more than 25 percent vacant: 25; two fully vacant buildings sqft approximate: 2,700,000; share of downtown vacant space in two buildings approximate: 50mixed | Downtown office conditions and conversion analysis through the study period | Downtown St | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| Local historic districts and certified local historic districts | local historic districts: 18; certified local historic districts: 8districts | Current district list accessed August 2026 | St | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| Exterior changes in local historic districts are generally reviewed under district-specific standards, and larger projects may require Preservation Board review | yesrule present | Current district list accessed August 2026 | City of St | Conditional relationship | [18] [19] |
| Compliant Cultural Resources Office applications may be approved within a few days, while noncompliant or incomplete applications take longer | compliant path: few days; extended path triggers: noncompliance, additional information required, larger project reviewdescriptive | Current process accessed August 2026 | City landmarks and City Historic Districts | Conditional relationship | [19] |
| City zoning includes Form-Based, Planned Unit Development, Signage Plan, and Special Use overlay mechanisms | overlay types: form based district, planned unit development, signage plan overlay, special use districtoverlay types | Current overlay types accessed August 2026 | St | Conditional relationship | [20] |
| Commercial occupancy and building permits are reviewed for compliance with Title 26 zoning | yesrule present | Current process accessed August 2026 | St | Conditional relationship | [21] |
| Sign controls vary by zoning district and apply to multiple forms of visible commercial messaging | regulated examples: window stickers or paint, wall murals, banners, canopy textregulated sign types | Current sign-regulation guidance accessed August 2026 | St | Conditional relationship | [22] |
| Businesses may apply for an annually renewed commercial loading zone in front of the business | permit required: yes; renewal frequency: annualpermit rule | Current permit process accessed August 2026 | St | Conditional relationship | [23] |
| The City of St. Louis is independent of any county and performs functions commonly handled by county government | yesindependent city status | Current government structure accessed August 2026 | St | Conditional relationship | [24] |
| A 2026 policy brief reported 81 municipalities in St. Louis County in addition to the separate City of St. Louis | 81municipalities | Published in 2026; municipal count reported for St. Louis County | St | Conditional relationship | [25] |
| City quote and bid submission requires portal registration that can take up to seven days, plus current business-license and tax status | registration time maximum days: 7; business license required: yes; city payroll and sales tax current required: yesprocess requirements | Current procurement process accessed August 2026 | City of St | Supports modeled relationship | [26] [27] |
| Washington University procurement guidance calls for vendor research, preferred-supplier review, multiple bids, and supervisor review | vendor research: yes; preferred supplier review: yes; multiple bids: yes; supervisor review: yesprocess requirements | Current policy accessed August 2026 | Washington University in St | Supports modeled relationship | [28] |
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 72.51 after target-market demand +1.9 pts and referral ecosystem +0.6 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 - 2 - riverside through charlotteInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4QuickFacts: St. Louis city, Missouri
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Population density in 2020, Households in the 2020-2024 QuickFacts period, and Total retail sales in 2022
- 5St. Louis city, MO - Profile data
Used for: Housing units in the 2024 ACS 1-year profile
- 6Census Data: City of St. Louis
Used for: Occupied and vacant housing units in the 2020 Census
- 7St. Louis, Missouri Population History and Housing Statistics
Used for: Housing units built before 1940 in a Census-derived city summary and Housing units built after 2000 in a Census-derived city summary
- 8Median age of housing in St. Louis by neighborhood
Used for: Neighborhoods with a median housing age of at least 100 years
- 9Common Problems with Brick Masonry
Used for: Moisture and freeze-thaw cycles can spall historic brick and deteriorate mortar joints, while incompatible repointing can damage masonry
- 10Preservation Brief 2: Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings
Used for: Moisture and freeze-thaw cycles can spall historic brick and deteriorate mortar joints, while incompatible repointing can damage masonry
- 11A Glossary of Historic Masonry Deterioration Problems and Preservation Treatments
Used for: Moisture and freeze-thaw cycles can spall historic brick and deteriorate mortar joints, while incompatible repointing can damage masonry
- 12Facts & Figures
Used for: BJC Health aggregate system scale and BJC Medical Group physician and location network
- 13Our Impact on the St. Louis Region
Used for: Washington University employees reported for the St. Louis regional impact report and Washington University direct regional spending
- 14Occupational Employment and Wages in St. Louis — May 2024
Used for: Selected frontline and administrative mean hourly wages compared with national averages and Construction and maintenance mean hourly wages compared with national averages
- 15St. Louis MarketBeat Reports Q2 2026
Used for: Overall office vacancy in Q2 2026, Overall retail vacancy in Q2 2026, and Published overall industrial vacancy estimates differed by provider in Q2 2026
- 16St. Louis Industrial Figures Q2 2026
Used for: Published overall industrial vacancy estimates differed by provider in Q2 2026 and Industrial vacancy growth was linked to large-user rightsizing and migration toward modern bulk facilities
- 17Reversing an urban doom loop in St. Louis through office-to-residential conversion
Used for: Downtown office vacancy was concentrated in a limited set of buildings in the Brookings study
- 18City Historic Districts
Used for: Local historic districts and certified local historic districts and Exterior changes in local historic districts are generally reviewed under district-specific standards, and larger projects may require Preservation Board review
- 19CRO Applications and Permits
Used for: Exterior changes in local historic districts are generally reviewed under district-specific standards, and larger projects may require Preservation Board review and Compliant Cultural Resources Office applications may be approved within a few days, while noncompliant or incomplete applications take longer
- 20Zoning Overlay Districts
Used for: City zoning includes Form-Based, Planned Unit Development, Signage Plan, and Special Use overlay mechanisms
- 21Zoning Section
Used for: Commercial occupancy and building permits are reviewed for compliance with Title 26 zoning
- 22Answers to Common Zoning Questions
Used for: Sign controls vary by zoning district and apply to multiple forms of visible commercial messaging
- 23Apply for or Renew a Commercial Loading Zone Permit
Used for: Businesses may apply for an annually renewed commercial loading zone in front of the business
- 24City Government Structure
Used for: The City of St. Louis is independent of any county and performs functions commonly handled by county government
- 25Merging City and County: A Solution to St. Louis’s Structural Fragmentation
Used for: A 2026 policy brief reported 81 municipalities in St. Louis County in addition to the separate City of St. Louis
- 26List of Active City RFPs, RFQs, and RFIs
Used for: City quote and bid submission requires portal registration that can take up to seven days, plus current business-license and tax status
- 27Register to Submit Quotes and Bids Online
Used for: City quote and bid submission requires portal registration that can take up to seven days, plus current business-license and tax status
- 28Procurement Policy
Used for: Washington University procurement guidance calls for vendor research, preferred-supplier review, multiple bids, and supervisor review
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.