68.0 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Portland, Oregon
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Portland, Oregon. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Skilled-trade labor competition was a leading operating constraint.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
31Sources used
20Primary sources
32Local 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
0.8 points average among 10 affected concepts
1.4 points average reduction among 13 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 6 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Portland, Oregon
City Wide, ActionCOACH, and FASTSIGNS produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Local business demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 10 exposed concepts, adding 0.8 points on average. One important asymmetry was that the same local condition supported replacement and repair demand while also creating legacy-system service complexity. Mister Sparky Electric was especially relationship-sensitive: removing skilled-trade labor competition moved it from #14 to #11 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 | 72.0Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 71.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.3 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.7 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 69.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 69.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 69.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 69.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.8 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 68.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsReferral ecosystem | -1.9 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 67.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsReferral ecosystem | -1.8 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Portland, Oregon
Large resident, household, transaction, institutional, and logistics base
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 0.8 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Selected city business receipts and sales: retail sales usd: 15,991,282,000; accommodation and food sales usd: 3,478,947,000; health care and social assistance revenue usd: 11,491,499,000; transportation and warehousing revenue usd: 5,838,623,000. [4]
Older and unreinforced-masonry building cohort with project-triggered seismic complexity
The same local condition created complementary effects: replacement and repair demand supported exposed concepts while legacy-system service complexity constrained others. [5] [6]
skilled-trade-route-service
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was property replacement-cycle demand, while the main constraint was labor and staffing friction. [7] [22] [4] [26] [27] [24] [25] [21] [28] [23] [29] [14] [13]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large resident, household, transaction, institutional, and logistics base1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Older and unreinforced-masonry building cohort with project-triggered seismic complexity3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Estimated housing-stock composition: total units: 304,113; single family percent: 54; middle housing percent: 14; multifamily percent: 32; other percent: 0.1 percent and units [6]
- Housing units: 315,899 housing units [5]
- Portland maintains a known and suspected unreinforced-masonry building inventory and identifies URM buildings as earthquake-vulnerable: typical construction period: late 1800s to about 1960s; documented risk types: injury, property damage, loss of use; inventory status: known and suspected buildings categorical conditions [13]
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Legacy-system service complexityLabor and staffing friction
Annual energy-reporting obligations for covered commercial buildings1 local fact · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Annual commercial-building energy reporting threshold and scope: minimum gross floor area sqft: 20,000; annual deadline: April 22; approximate covered buildings: 1,000; included primary uses: office, retail, grocery, health care, higher education, hotel; excluded primary uses: housing, industrial, nursing home, parking, K-12 education, residential, warehouse, worship program thresholds and scope [11] [12]
Facility compliance burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Energy-retrofit service demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Elevated statutory and metropolitan frontline wage baseline1 modeled effect
Frontline labor pressureLabor and staffing friction
Above-national skilled-trade wage levels in the metropolitan labor market1 modeled effect
Skilled-trade labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
Congestion, loading-zone limits, and bridge-routing constraints reduce route flexibility1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
Large health, logistics, and municipal procurement institutions create account and referral channels with formal sales processes3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- OHSU employment, student, bed, and facility footprint: employees: 22,501; students 2024 25: 4,337; licensed beds 2026: 704; occupied and leased space sqft: 9,200,000; land acres approximately: 400 institutional counts [28]
- Port of Portland airport, marine-terminal, and business-park network: airports: 3; marine terminals: 3; business parks: 6; supported jobs approximately: 62,000; gdp usd: 9,700,000,000; labor income usd: 6,500,000,000 infrastructure and economic counts [29]
- City procurement exposes structured opportunities for products, professional services, trades, maintenance, construction, and other services: open solicitations, supplier registration, products and equipment, professional services, contractors and maintenance, engineering and design, small business support portal functions and supplier types [26]
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 alignment72.0
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.8 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.01 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 | +1.6 |
| 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 | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.8 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.01 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.0 |
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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.8
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +1.3 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 |
| +1.3 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.85 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 | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 71.85 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +1.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.7 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.7 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.76 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
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 | +1.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.76 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#3
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.2 pts | |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.08 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.3 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.92 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#7
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +1.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.2 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.27 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 | -1.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.2 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.73 |
| 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
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#8
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market 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 | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.60 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.3 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 69.40 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#7
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.3
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.73 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.5 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.27 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#11
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.1
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.8 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.93 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.07 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#8
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.0
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -1.9 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.9 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.8 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.98 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 | -1.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.8 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 68.02 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.0 |
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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#10
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.9
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -1.8 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.8 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.9 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.06 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.9 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 67.94 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#10
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.6
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -2.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.2 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.2 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.40 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 | -2.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 67.60 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#11
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.1
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -2.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.3 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.0 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.86 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.0 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.14 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#14
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.0
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -2.5 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 | -2.5 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.9 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.97 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 | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.9 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.03 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.0 |
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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.0
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.2 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.4 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -3.02 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 | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.8 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 66.98 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.0 |
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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#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 | +1.6 |
| 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 | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.8 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.01 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectPositive local support
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 10 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. HomeSmiles moved from #4 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted10 of 14
Average among affected+0.8 pts
Average across all concepts+0.6 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- City Population Estimate635,109 persons
- Households289,705 households
- Selected City Business Receipts And Salesretail sales usd: 15,991,282,000; accommodation and food sales usd: 3,478,947,000; health care and social assistance revenue usd: 11,491,499,000; transportation and warehousing revenue usd: 5,838,623,000
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.6 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+1.5 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.4 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+1.3 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, 2 concepts changed position. Mister Sparky Electric moved from #14 to #13, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.2 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank2
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.2 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.2 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.2 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.2 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+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, 10 concepts changed position. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors moved from #7 to #11, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected-1.4 pts
Average across all concepts-1.3 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Portland Metro Minimum Wage Effective July 1, 202616.8 USD per hour
- Selected Frontline And Administrative Occupation Mean Hourly Wagesfood preparation and serving: portland msa: 21.64, united states: 17.86; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: portland msa: 22.56, united states: 19.66; sales and related: portland msa: 28.36, united states: 26.43; office and administrative support: portland msa: 27.15, united states: 24.79; transportation and material moving: portland msa: 25.82, united states: 23.96 USD per hour
- Selected Skilled Trade Occupation Mean Hourly Wagesconstruction and extraction: portland msa: 39.44, united states: 31.42; installation maintenance and repair: portland msa: 34.98, united states: 30.44 USD per hour
Concepts challenged most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-2.5 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-2.4 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-2.3 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-2.2 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.9 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Transportation, routing, and parking
We recalculated route-dependent models after accounting for travel corridors, parking, and the number of productive stops they require.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 4 concepts changed position. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors moved from #7 to #6, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected-0.6 pts
Average across all concepts-0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank4
What we observed
- Truck Loading Zones Limit Eligible Vehicles To Active Loading Or Unloading For No More Than 30 Minutesmaximum minutes: 30; active loading or unloading required: yes; return restriction: vacate block face or move 500 feet for one hour rule conditions
- Pbot Owned Bridge Inventory And Age Profilepbot owned bridges: 159; share over 50 years: almost half bridges and categorical share
- Pbot Publishes Priority Truck Routes And Weight Restricted Bridges For Compliant Routingpriority routes, bridge weight restrictions, over dimensional route review routing controls
Concepts challenged most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.2 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-1.0 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.9 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.9 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-0.8 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, 3 concepts changed position. HomeSmiles moved from #4 to #6, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.5 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank3
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.8 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.6 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.5 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.5 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideStable · tested #1–#2
#2 ActionCOACHStable · tested #1–#2
#3 FASTSIGNSStable · tested #3–#3
#4 HomeSmilesModerately sensitive · tested #4–#7
#5 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #4–#8
#6 Tiger AdjustersModerately sensitive · tested #4–#7
#7 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #5–#11
#8 Workout AnytimeModerately sensitive · tested #6–#8
#9 Rainbow International RestorationModerately sensitive · tested #8–#10
#10 PuroCleanStable · tested #9–#10
#11 ZOOM DRAINModerately sensitive · tested #9–#11
#12 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #12–#14
#13 Aire ServModerately sensitive · tested #12–#14
#14 Mister Sparky ElectricModerately sensitive · tested #12–#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] [6] [9] [28] [29] [16] [17] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [6] [13] [14] [15] [11] [12] [1]Competitive environment: [4] [9] [26] [28] [29]Labor and staffing friction: [8] [7] [9] [13] [14] [28] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [24] [25] [21] [22] [23]Real estate and site feasibility: [10] [11] [12] [13] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [30] [31] [2] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [26] [27] [28] [29] [4] [9]Referral ecosystem: [28] [29] [26] [27]Territory quality: [4] [6] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [22] [30] [31] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [21] [30] [31] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Transportation, routing, and parking | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +1.6 pts | — | -0.3 pts | -0.1 pts | +0.8 pts |
| #2 ActionCOACH | +1.3 pts | — | — | — | +0.6 pts |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +1.5 pts | — | -0.7 pts | -0.4 pts | +0.3 pts |
| #4 HomeSmiles | +0.9 pts | — | -1.2 pts | -0.3 pts | +0.6 pts |
| #5 Jan-Pro International | +1.4 pts | — | -1.5 pts | -0.4 pts | +0.2 pts |
| #6 Tiger Adjusters | +0.2 pts | — | -0.5 pts | -0.3 pts | — |
| #7 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.1 pts | +0.1 pts | -0.4 pts | -0.5 pts | — |
| #8 Workout Anytime | — | — | -0.8 pts | -0.1 pts | — |
| #9 Rainbow International Restoration | — | +0.2 pts | -1.9 pts | -0.8 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #10 PuroClean | — | +0.2 pts | -1.8 pts | -0.9 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #11 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.3 pts | +0.2 pts | -2.2 pts | -1.2 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #12 Mr. Rooter | +0.2 pts | +0.2 pts | -2.3 pts | -1.0 pts | — |
| #13 Aire Serv | +0.2 pts | +0.2 pts | -2.5 pts | -0.9 pts | — |
| #14 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.2 pts | -2.4 pts | -0.8 pts | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, ActionCOACH, FASTSIGNS led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to labor and staffing friction. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for Jan-Pro International, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Portland, Oregon
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
68.0Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Portland, Oregon
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 67.9 to 68.0. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 68.0. Referral ecosystem added 0.5 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 1.8 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
- 67.9–68.0
- Category average
- 68.0
Rainbow International Restoration68.0
PuroClean67.9
Metric registry
The 32 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| City population estimate | 635,109persons | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 characteristics; 2022 economic measures | Portland, Oregon | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Households | 289,705households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 characteristics; 2022 economic measures | Portland, Oregon | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Selected city business receipts and sales | retail sales usd: 15,991,282,000; accommodation and food sales usd: 3,478,947,000; health care and social assistance revenue usd: 11,491,499,000; transportation and warehousing revenue usd: 5,838,623,000USD | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 characteristics; 2022 economic measures | Portland, Oregon | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Housing units | 315,899housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates | Portland, Oregon | Supports modeled relationship | [5] |
| Estimated housing-stock composition | total units: 304,113; single family percent: 54; middle housing percent: 14; multifamily percent: 32; other percent: 0.1percent and units | Housing stock through 2023; residential permits through 2024 | Portland, Oregon | Supports modeled relationship | [6] |
| Residential units permitted from 2010 through 2024 | total units permitted: 65,104; average units per year: 4,340housing units | Housing stock through 2023; residential permits through 2024 | Portland, Oregon | Context only | [6] |
| Portland maintains a known and suspected unreinforced-masonry building inventory and identifies URM buildings as earthquake-vulnerable | typical construction period: late 1800s to about 1960s; documented risk types: injury, property damage, loss of use; inventory status: known and suspected buildingscategorical conditions | Current guidance and regulatory history on access date | Known and suspected URM buildings in Portland | Used in scoring | [13] |
| Existing-building seismic requirements can be triggered by change of use, occupancy, alteration, repair, or URM project-cost thresholds | change of use or occupancy, major alteration or repair, urm cost thresholds, specified roof and parapet worktrigger categories | Current Chapter 24.85 guidance on access date | City of Portland | Used in scoring | [14] [15] |
| Annual commercial-building energy reporting threshold and scope | minimum gross floor area sqft: 20,000; annual deadline: April 22; approximate covered buildings: 1,000; included primary uses: office, retail, grocery, health care, higher education, hotel; excluded primary uses: housing, industrial, nursing home, parking, K-12 education, residential, warehouse, worshipprogram thresholds and scope | Current policy on access date | City of Portland | Supports modeled relationship | [11] [12] |
| Portland metro minimum wage effective July 1, 2026 | 16.8USD per hour | Rates effective July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027 | Portland metropolitan urban growth boundary | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Selected frontline and administrative occupation mean hourly wages | food preparation and serving: portland msa: 21.64, united states: 17.86; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: portland msa: 22.56, united states: 19.66; sales and related: portland msa: 28.36, united states: 26.43; office and administrative support: portland msa: 27.15, united states: 24.79; transportation and material moving: portland msa: 25.82, united states: 23.96USD per hour | May 2025 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics | Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Selected skilled-trade occupation mean hourly wages | construction and extraction: portland msa: 39.44, united states: 31.42; installation maintenance and repair: portland msa: 34.98, united states: 30.44USD per hour | May 2025 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics | Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Metropolitan nonfarm employment and selected industry employment | total nonfarm thousands: 1,217.4; trade transportation utilities thousands: 213.3; construction thousands: 74.3; manufacturing thousands: 111.1; twelve month total nonfarm change percent: -2.1thousands of jobs and percent | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and nonfarm-employment data | Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA | Context only | [9] |
| OHSU employment, student, bed, and facility footprint | employees: 22,501; students 2024 25: 4,337; licensed beds 2026: 704; occupied and leased space sqft: 9,200,000; land acres approximately: 400institutional counts | 2024-2025 enrollment; 2026 licensed-bed count; current institutional footprint | Oregon Health & Science University | Used in scoring | [28] |
| Port of Portland airport, marine-terminal, and business-park network | airports: 3; marine terminals: 3; business parks: 6; supported jobs approximately: 62,000; gdp usd: 9,700,000,000; labor income usd: 6,500,000,000infrastructure and economic counts | Current infrastructure and economic-impact figures on access date | Port of Portland | Used in scoring | [29] |
| City procurement exposes structured opportunities for products, professional services, trades, maintenance, construction, and other services | open solicitations, supplier registration, products and equipment, professional services, contractors and maintenance, engineering and design, small business supportportal functions and supplier types | Current procurement channels and supplier categories on access date | City of Portland | Supports modeled relationship | [26] |
| City RFPs use responsiveness and responsibility checks, scored evaluation rounds, award notice, and contract negotiation | solicitation development, proposal questions and submission, responsiveness and responsibility review, scored evaluation rounds, notice of intent to award, contract negotiation and executionprocurement stages | Current RFP guide updated December 10, 2025 | City of Portland | Supports modeled relationship | [27] |
| Transportation System Development Charges apply to new construction and to redevelopment that increases evening-peak person trips | covered project types: new residential construction, new commercial construction, new industrial construction, redevelopment increasing trips; overlay areas: Innovation Quadrant, North Macadam; payment options: permit issue payment, 6 9 or 12 month deferral with interest, 5 10 or 20 year installments with interestrule conditions | Citywide and overlay rates effective July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027 | City of Portland | Conditional relationship | [10] |
| Selected citywide TSDC rates effective July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027 | quick service restaurant drive through usd per sqft gfa: 122.69; standalone restaurant usd per sqft gfa: 38.97; convenience market usd per sqft gfa: 120.7; shopping retail usd per sqft gfa: 15.27; free standing retail or supermarket usd per sqft gfa: 31.25; bank usd per sqft gfa: 49.99; service station usd per vehicle fueling position: 41,083; light industrial manufacturing usd per sqft gfa: 4.59; additional values omittedUSD per assessment unit | Citywide and overlay rates effective July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027 | City of Portland | Conditional relationship | [10] |
| Illustrative citywide TSDC for a 2,500-square-foot drive-through quick-service restaurant before credits, exemptions, overlays, and other SDCs | 306,725USD | Citywide and overlay rates effective July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027 | City of Portland citywide rate area | Conditional relationship | [10] |
| Central City foot traffic relative to the 2020 baseline | 86percent of 2020 baseline | Central City foot traffic, office leasing, and vacant office inventory during 2025 | Portland Central City | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| Central City office leasing and vacant inventory | quarterly average leased sqft: 252,289; quarterly average vacant office sqft: 10,200,000square feet | Central City foot traffic, office leasing, and vacant office inventory during 2025 | Portland Central City | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| Office vacancy and asking rents vary materially between downtown and other submarkets | portland total vacancy percent: 16.3; portland total asking rent usd per sqft fsg: 29.16; downtown total vacancy percent: 29.6; downtown asking rent usd per sqft fsg: 27.36; east columbia corridor total vacancy percent: 3.3; east columbia corridor asking rent usd per sqft fsg: 30.12; kruse way total vacancy percent: 20.9; kruse way asking rent usd per sqft fsg: 43.44quarterly market measures | Second quarter 2026 | Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro office market | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| Portland metropolitan industrial market measures | vacancy percent: 7.7; q2 leasing sqft: 2,400,000; q2 net absorption sqft: 508,147; ytd net absorption sqft: 404,872quarterly market measures | Second quarter 2026 | Portland metropolitan industrial market | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| Employment-land analysis finds most projected need is met but industrial land is tight | projected new jobs 2019 2045: 90,600; employment land needed acres approximately: 2,900; city assessment: most need met but industrial land tightforecast and planning finding | Employment-land need and forecast through 2045 | City of Portland | Conditional relationship | [20] |
| The metropolitan urban growth boundary protects farms and forests and must include land for 20 years of growth | purpose: protect farms and forests, promote efficient land use; planning horizon years: 20policy components | Current regional growth-management framework on access date | Portland metropolitan region | Context only | [19] |
| Truck loading zones limit eligible vehicles to active loading or unloading for no more than 30 minutes | maximum minutes: 30; active loading or unloading required: yes; return restriction: vacate block face or move 500 feet for one hourrule conditions | City code current on access date | City of Portland | Used in scoring | [21] |
| Reported annual time lost to congestion | hours lost per driver: 41; united states rank: 25hours per driver per year and rank | Calendar year 2025 observed-trip congestion analysis | Portland urban area | Used in scoring | [24] [25] |
| PBOT publishes priority truck routes and weight-restricted bridges for compliant routing | priority routes, bridge weight restrictions, over dimensional route reviewrouting controls | Current priority routes and bridge restrictions on access date | City of Portland | Used in scoring | [22] |
| PBOT-owned bridge inventory and age profile | pbot owned bridges: 159; share over 50 years: almost halfbridges and categorical share | PBOT bridge inventory current for 2024 | City of Portland | Used in scoring | [23] |
| Columbia South Shore sign standards limit freeway-oriented and freestanding signage | intended visibility: abutting streets not interstate freeways or locations outside district; prohibited sign types: freestanding except monument temporary and directional, changing image, internally illuminated awning; monument sign max height feet: 6; monument sign max length feet: 10; marine drive sign prohibition within feet of levee toe: 200rule components | City sign code current on access date | Columbia South Shore plan district | Conditional relationship | [30] |
| Mapped design-overlay properties may require design review or compliance with objective design standards | map symbol: d; possible pathways: discretionary design review, eligible objective design standards; site specific eligibility required: yesregulatory pathways | Current design-overlay procedures on access date | City of Portland design overlay zones | Conditional relationship | [31] |
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 72.01 after target-market demand +1.6 pts, referral ecosystem +0.8 pts, labor and staffing friction -0.3 pts, and transportation, routing, and parking -0.1 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Franchise Opportunities in Tier-1 U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Structural Constraints and Hidden Municipal Costs: A Forensic Audit of Ten U.S. JurisdictionsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - 2 - riverside through charlotteInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Portland city, Oregon
Used for: City population estimate, Households, and Selected city business receipts and sales
- 5Portland, OR profile data
Used for: Housing units
- 62024 State of Housing in Portland
Used for: Estimated housing-stock composition and Residential units permitted from 2010 through 2024
- 7Occupational Employment and Wages in Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro — May 2025
Used for: Selected frontline and administrative occupation mean hourly wages and Selected skilled-trade occupation mean hourly wages
- 8Oregon Minimum Wage
Used for: Portland metro minimum wage effective July 1, 2026
- 9Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA Economy at a Glance
Used for: Metropolitan nonfarm employment and selected industry employment
- 10Transportation System Development Charges (TSDCs)
Used for: Transportation System Development Charges apply to new construction and to redevelopment that increases evening-peak person trips, Selected citywide TSDC rates effective July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027, and Illustrative citywide TSDC for a 2,500-square-foot drive-through quick-service restaurant before credits, exemptions, overlays, and other SDCs
- 11About the Commercial Building Energy Reporting policy
Used for: Annual commercial-building energy reporting threshold and scope
- 12Portland City Code Chapter 17.104: Commercial Building Energy Performance Reporting
Used for: Annual commercial-building energy reporting threshold and scope
- 13Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Buildings
Used for: Portland maintains a known and suspected unreinforced-masonry building inventory and identifies URM buildings as earthquake-vulnerable
- 14Chapter 24.85 - Seismic Design Standards for Existing Buildings
Used for: Existing-building seismic requirements can be triggered by change of use, occupancy, alteration, repair, or URM project-cost thresholds
- 15Portland City Code Chapter 24.85: Seismic Design Requirements for Existing Buildings
Used for: Existing-building seismic requirements can be triggered by change of use, occupancy, alteration, repair, or URM project-cost thresholds
- 162026 State of Downtown & the Central City
Used for: Central City foot traffic relative to the 2020 baseline and Central City office leasing and vacant inventory
- 17Portland Office Market Report Q2 2026
Used for: Office vacancy and asking rents vary materially between downtown and other submarkets
- 18Portland Industrial Figures Q2 2026
Used for: Portland metropolitan industrial market measures
- 19Urban growth boundary
Used for: The metropolitan urban growth boundary protects farms and forests and must include land for 20 years of growth
- 20Economic Opportunities Analysis FAQ
Used for: Employment-land analysis finds most projected need is met but industrial land is tight
- 21Portland City Code Section 16.20.220: Truck Loading Zones
Used for: Truck loading zones limit eligible vehicles to active loading or unloading for no more than 30 minutes
- 22Guide to the Bridge Restrictions and Over-dimensional Truck Routing Reference Map
Used for: PBOT publishes priority truck routes and weight-restricted bridges for compliant routing
- 232024 PBOT Bridges
Used for: PBOT-owned bridge inventory and age profile
- 24INRIX 2025 Traffic Scorecard: Portland city profile
Used for: Reported annual time lost to congestion
- 25Study: Portlanders spend nearly two days in traffic, city ranks 25th in U.S. for gridlock
Used for: Reported annual time lost to congestion
- 26Doing Business with the City of Portland
Used for: City procurement exposes structured opportunities for products, professional services, trades, maintenance, construction, and other services
- 27Request for Proposals Guide for Vendors
Used for: City RFPs use responsiveness and responsibility checks, scored evaluation rounds, award notice, and contract negotiation
- 28Facts and Figures about OHSU in Portland
Used for: OHSU employment, student, bed, and facility footprint
- 29Port of Portland - About
Used for: Port of Portland airport, marine-terminal, and business-park network
- 30Portland City Code Section 32.34.030: Additional Standards in Plan Districts
Used for: Columbia South Shore sign standards limit freeway-oriented and freestanding signage
- 31Design Standards and Chapter 33.420 Design Overlay Zone
Used for: Mapped design-overlay properties may require design review or compliance with objective design standards
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.