69.2 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Sacramento, California
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Sacramento, California. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Frontline labor pressure 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
34Local sources used
61Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
1.7 points average among 11 affected concepts
0.7 points average reduction among 9 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 12 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Sacramento, California
City Wide, FASTSIGNS, and ActionCOACH produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Local business demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 10 exposed concepts, adding 1.1 points on average. Frontline labor pressure was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.7 points on average. 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 | 75.1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +4.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 73.4Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +3.2 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 73.2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 72.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +3.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.9 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Sacramento, California
Large resident, employer, government, health-care, and education base supports broad local business demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 1.1 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Employer establishments in 2023: 34,280 establishments. [6]
State wage rules and metropolitan occupation wages create material frontline staffing pressure
This relationship affected 9 concepts and reduced 0.7 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Minimum wage for covered fast-food workers: 20 usd per hour. [18]
Government employment and state-leased office space are unusually large in the Sacramento market
Government concentration supports institutional accounts and professional networks, but agency occupancy is split among owned and leased buildings, telework exceptions remain, and demand is location- and procurement-specific. It should not be converted directly into uniform downtown walk-in or lunch demand. [16] [13] [15] [14]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large resident, employer, government, health-care, and education base supports broad local business demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
State-government and university concentration creates institutional-account and professional-referral potential3 local facts · 3 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Government employment in June 2026: 268,600 jobs [16]
- State real-property leases in Sacramento County: 379 leases [13]
- State-leased office area in Sacramento County: 6,969,035 square feet [13]
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Institutional professional relationship baseReferral ecosystem
Campus-contained demand constraintTarget-market demand
UC Davis Health and the broader education-and-health cluster support institutional service demand3 local facts · 3 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Education and health services employment in June 2026: 222,700 jobs [16]
- Health care and social assistance receipts or revenue in 2022: 11,824,625,000 usd [4]
- UC Davis Health staff: 15,319 employees [19]
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
Healthcare-overlap labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
Campus-contained consumer demandTarget-market demand
State wage rules and metropolitan occupation wages create material frontline staffing pressure1 modeled effect
Frontline labor pressureLabor and staffing friction
Government and institutional account opportunities carry threshold- and buyer-specific procurement cycles1 modeled effect
Institutional procurement-cycle frictionSales and customer acquisition
I-5 interchange demand and corridor-specific congestion can constrain route timing and airport-area access1 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 alignment75.1
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +4.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 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 | +4.9 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +5.09 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +4.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| 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 | 75.09 |
| Published local-market alignment | 75.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +4.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment73.4
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +3.2 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 | +3.2 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +3.36 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +3.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 73.36 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +3.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#3
#3Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment73.2
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +2.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.4 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.9 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +3.24 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.9 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 73.24 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#4
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment72.0
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +3.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.9 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +3.9 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.9 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | Healthcare-overlap labor competition EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.99 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +3.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 71.99 |
| 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 +3.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#14
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.6
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +2.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.2 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | Healthcare-overlap labor competition EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.64 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 71.64 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#10
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandNo 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.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.44 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 70.44 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#6
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.3 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 |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.33 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 70.33 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#9
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.2 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 |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.18 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 70.18 |
| 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
- 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 +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#11
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | Healthcare-overlap labor competition EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.17 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.17 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#9
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.15 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#10
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Mister Sparky Electric
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo 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.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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
- 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
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.3
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.1 pts |
| Target-market demand | +0.3 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction | Healthcare-overlap labor competition EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.74 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | 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 | 69.26 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.1
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.9 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 |
| -0.9 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | Healthcare-overlap labor competition EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.91 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | 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 | 69.09 |
| 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 -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.9
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.1 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 |
| -1.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.06 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.94 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.1 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +4.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| 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 | 75.09 |
| Published local-market alignment | 75.1 |
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, 11 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #4 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted11 of 14
Average among affected+1.7 pts
Average across all concepts+1.3 pts
Concepts changing rank11
What we observed
- Resident Population Estimate On July 1, 2025536,449 people
- Households In Sacramento During The 2020 2024 Acs Period200,321 households
- Employer Establishments In 202334,280 establishments
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+4.9 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+3.9 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+3.2 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+2.4 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+2.2 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 9 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. Rainbow International Restoration moved from #12 to #8, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted9 of 14
Average among affected-0.7 pts
Average across all concepts-0.4 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Mean Hourly Wage Across All Occupations In May 202537.09 usd per hour
- Mean Hourly Wage For Food Preparation And Serving Occupations In May 202520.9 usd per hour
- Mean Hourly Wage For Personal Care And Service Occupations In May 202521.21 usd per hour
Concepts challenged most
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-1.9 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.1 pts
Workout AnytimeFitness
-1.1 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.9 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
-0.5 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 3 of 14 concepts. The adjustments changed absolute scores without changing the order.
Concepts adjusted3 of 14
Average among affected+0.5 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank0
Concepts helped most
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.9 pts
City WideFacility management
+0.6 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.1 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Property replacement-cycle demandNo material score adjustment
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideStable · tested #1–#2
#2 FASTSIGNSStable · tested #2–#3
#3 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #1–#4
#4 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#14
#5 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #5–#10
#6 ZOOM DRAINModerately sensitive · tested #4–#6
#7 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #5–#9
#8 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #7–#11
#9 Aire ServModerately sensitive · tested #7–#9
#10 Tiger AdjustersModerately sensitive · tested #8–#10
#11 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #6–#12
#12 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13
#13 PuroCleanModerately sensitive · tested #11–#13
#14 Workout AnytimeModerately 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.
Score-changing factors
Factors that changed the calculated scores
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] [6] [16] [13] [15] [19] [21] [23] [25] [26]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [4] [6] [8] [9] [34] [1]Competitive environment: [7] [6] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [4] [32] [33] [31] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [9] [11] [12] [31]Sales and customer acquisition: [27] [7] [6] [19] [21]Referral ecosystem: [16] [6] [19] [20] [21] [27]Territory quality: [9] [12] [29] [31] [23] [33] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [9] [11] [12] [28] [29] [30] [31] [27] [18]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Labor and staffing friction | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +4.9 pts | -0.4 pts | +0.6 pts |
| #2 FASTSIGNS | +3.2 pts | — | +0.1 pts |
| #3 ActionCOACH | +2.4 pts | -0.1 pts | +0.9 pts |
| #4 Jan-Pro International | +3.9 pts | -1.9 pts | — |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +2.2 pts | -0.5 pts | — |
| #6 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.4 pts | — | — |
| #7 Mr. Rooter | +0.3 pts | — | — |
| #8 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.2 pts | — | — |
| #9 Aire Serv | +0.4 pts | -0.2 pts | — |
| #10 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | -0.1 pts | — |
| #11 Mister Sparky Electric | — | — | — |
| #12 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.3 pts | -1.1 pts | — |
| #13 PuroClean | — | -0.9 pts | — |
| #14 Workout Anytime | — | -1.1 pts | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, FASTSIGNS, ActionCOACH led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to labor and staffing friction. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for Jan-Pro International, HomeSmiles, Mr. Rooter; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Sacramento, California
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.2Limited comparison: Restoration franchise opportunities assessed in Sacramento, California
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.1 to 69.3. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 69.3. Target-market demand added 0.2 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 1 point on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.2-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 69.1–69.3
- Category average
- 69.2
Rainbow International Restoration69.3
PuroClean69.1
Metric registry
The 61 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 | 536,449people | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 demographic, housing, business, and commute characteristics | Sacramento, California | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 2.2percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 demographic, housing, business, and commute characteristics | Sacramento, California | Context only | [4] |
| Households in Sacramento during the 2020-2024 ACS period | 200,321households | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 demographic, housing, business, and commute characteristics | Sacramento, California | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing-unit rate | 51.7percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 demographic, housing, business, and commute characteristics | Sacramento, California | Conditional relationship | [4] |
| Estimated housing units in 2024 | 211,869housing units | 2024 ACS estimates | Sacramento, California | Conditional relationship | [5] |
| Residential building permits in 2024 | 6,747housing units authorized | 2025 population/housing estimates, 2024 permits, and 2023 business statistics | Sacramento County, California | Context only | [6] |
| Employer establishments in 2023 | 34,280establishments | 2025 population/housing estimates, 2024 permits, and 2023 business statistics | Sacramento County, California | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Employment at county employer establishments in 2023 | 533,709employees | 2025 population/housing estimates, 2024 permits, and 2023 business statistics | Sacramento County, California | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Annual payroll at county employer establishments in 2023 | 38,030,340,000usd per year | 2025 population/housing estimates, 2024 permits, and 2023 business statistics | Sacramento County, California | Context only | [6] |
| Retail sales in 2022 | 7,833,052,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 demographic, housing, business, and commute characteristics | Sacramento, California | Context only | [4] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts or revenue in 2022 | 11,824,625,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 demographic, housing, business, and commute characteristics | Sacramento, California | Supports modeled relationship | [4] |
| Mean travel time to work | 25.3minutes | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 demographic, housing, business, and commute characteristics | Sacramento, California | Conditional relationship | [4] |
| Population density at the 2020 Census | 5,323.4people per square mile | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 demographic, housing, business, and commute characteristics | Sacramento, California | Context only | [4] |
| Population living in the Sacramento-area floodplain | 500,000people more than | Current project portfolio accessed August 2026 | Sacramento-area floodplain protected by SAFCA projects | Supports research conclusion | [8] |
| Damageable property protected by the regional flood-control system | 70,000,000,000usd more than | Current project portfolio accessed August 2026 | Sacramento-area floodplain protected by SAFCA projects | Supports research conclusion | [8] |
| Levees and channels within the regional flood-control system | 106miles approximate | Current project portfolio accessed August 2026 | Sacramento-area flood-control system | Supports research conclusion | [8] |
| Natomas A99 flood-zone designation effective date | 2024-07-01date | Requirements current August 2026; A99 designation effective July 1, 2024 | Natomas, Sacramento, California | Conditional relationship | [9] |
| New or substantially improved commercial buildings in Natomas A99 must be elevated or floodproofed to specified levels | minimum above highest adjacent 100 year hydraulic grade line: 1; minimum above controlling overland release point: 1.5feet | Requirements current August 2026; A99 designation effective July 1, 2024 | Natomas A99 flood zone, Sacramento | Context only | [9] |
| Flood-zone substantial-improvement threshold | 50percent of market value | Requirements current August 2026; A99 designation effective July 1, 2024 | Applicable Sacramento flood zones | Context only | [9] |
| SAFCA development impact fee applies to newly created damageable square footage in designated areas | yesboolean | Current fee categories accessed August 2026 | Applicable Sacramento development projects | Context only | [11] |
| Infrastructure fee schedules vary across named Sacramento districts | effective date: 2026-07-01; examples: Central City, North Natomas, Railyards, River District, South Natomas, 65th Streetdistrict specific schedules | Schedules effective July 1, 2026 | Named Sacramento fee districts | Conditional relationship | [12] |
| State real-property leases in Sacramento County | 379leases | Inventory as of March 1, 2026 | Sacramento County, California | Supports modeled relationship | [13] |
| State-leased office area in Sacramento County | 6,969,035square feet | Inventory as of March 1, 2026 | Sacramento County, California | Supports modeled relationship | [13] |
| State-leased storage and other area in Sacramento County | 2,519,935square feet | Inventory as of March 1, 2026 | Sacramento County, California | Context only | [13] |
| Annual state rent for leased property in Sacramento County | 225,924,408usd per year | Inventory as of March 1, 2026 | Sacramento County, California | Context only | [13] |
| Default state-agency in-office schedule under the 2025 return-to-office order | 4days per week | Default four-day in-office policy effective July 1, 2025 | California state agencies, subject to exceptions | Supports research conclusion | [15] |
| Total nonfarm employment in June 2026 | 1,112,700jobs | Employment through June 2026 | Sacramento metropolitan area | Used in scoring | [16] |
| Government employment in June 2026 | 268,600jobs | Employment through June 2026 | Sacramento metropolitan area | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| Education and health services employment in June 2026 | 222,700jobs | Employment through June 2026 | Sacramento metropolitan area | Supports modeled relationship | [16] |
| Mean hourly wage across all occupations in May 2025 | 37.09usd per hour | May 2025 | Sacramento–Roseville–Folsom metropolitan area | Used in scoring | [17] |
| Mean hourly wage for food preparation and serving occupations in May 2025 | 20.9usd per hour | May 2025 | Sacramento–Roseville–Folsom metropolitan area | Used in scoring | [17] |
| Mean hourly wage for healthcare support occupations in May 2025 | 20.07usd per hour | May 2025 | Sacramento–Roseville–Folsom metropolitan area | Context only | [17] |
| Mean hourly wage for personal care and service occupations in May 2025 | 21.21usd per hour | May 2025 | Sacramento–Roseville–Folsom metropolitan area | Used in scoring | [17] |
| California minimum wage effective January 1, 2026 | 16.9usd per hour | Rates effective January 1, 2026 | California | Used in scoring | [18] |
| Minimum wage for covered fast-food workers | 20usd per hour | Rates effective January 1, 2026 | Covered California fast-food establishments | Used in scoring | [18] |
| UC Davis Health staff | 15,319employees | Current organizational and 2024 service-volume figures accessed August 2026 | UC Davis Health, Sacramento | Conditional relationship | [19] |
| UC Davis Health clinic visits in 2024 | 1,085,796visits | Current organizational and 2024 service-volume figures accessed August 2026 | UC Davis Health, Sacramento | Supports modeled relationship | [19] |
| UC Davis Health emergency-department visits in 2024 | 93,944visits | Current organizational and 2024 service-volume figures accessed August 2026 | UC Davis Health, Sacramento | Supports modeled relationship | [19] |
| UC Davis Health inpatient admissions in 2024 | 35,020admissions | Current organizational and 2024 service-volume figures accessed August 2026 | UC Davis Health, Sacramento | Context only | [19] |
| UC Davis Health direct employees in the region | 19,144employees | Current regional employment and economic-impact figures accessed August 2026 | Sacramento region | Context only | [20] |
| Sacramento State fall 2025 enrollment | 31,307students | Fall 2025 enrollment | California State University, Sacramento | Conditional relationship | [21] |
| Sacramento office vacancy in Q2 2026 | 18.3percent | Second quarter 2026 | Sacramento office market | Context only | [22] |
| Sacramento total office vacancy in Q2 2026 | 11.4percent | Second quarter 2026 | Sacramento office market | Context only | [23] |
| Downtown Sacramento total office vacancy in Q2 2026 | 9.3percent | Second quarter 2026 | Downtown Sacramento office market | Conditional relationship | [23] |
| Sacramento industrial direct vacancy in Q2 2026 | 6.5percent | Second quarter 2026 | Sacramento industrial market | Supports research conclusion | [24] |
| Sacramento flex-space direct vacancy in Q2 2026 | 7.8percent | Second quarter 2026 | Sacramento flex-space segment | Supports research conclusion | [24] |
| Sacramento flex-space availability in Q2 2026 | 11percent | Second quarter 2026 | Sacramento flex-space segment | Supports research conclusion | [24] |
| Sacramento flex-space asking rent in Q2 2026 | 1.06usd per square foot per month | Second quarter 2026 | Sacramento flex-space segment | Supports research conclusion | [24] |
| Sacramento retail vacancy in Q2 2026 | 5.9percent | Second quarter 2026 | Sacramento retail market | Context only | [25] |
| Sacramento retail vacancy in Q2 2026 | 7percent | Second quarter 2026 | Sacramento retail market | Context only | [26] |
| Sacramento retail net absorption in Q2 2026 | 279,056square feet | Second quarter 2026 | Sacramento retail market | Context only | [25] |
| Sacramento retail net absorption in Q2 2026 | -299,000square feet | Second quarter 2026 | Sacramento retail market | Context only | [26] |
| City procurement thresholds and quote requirements | discretionary max usd: 10,000; three quote range usd: 10,000.01, 100,000; formal solicitation range usd: 100,000.01, 249,999.99; council approval typical min usd: 250,000; local business preference percent: 5; sales tax preference percent: 1threshold schedule | Current thresholds accessed August 2026 | City of Sacramento procurement | Conditional relationship | [27] |
| Exterior development and specified physical changes generally require Site Plan and Design Review unless exempt | yesboolean | Current process accessed August 2026 | City of Sacramento | Conditional relationship | [28] |
| Historic-district plans impose district-specific preservation and design requirements | yesboolean | Current plans accessed August 2026 | Sacramento historic districts | Conditional relationship | [29] |
| Sign requirements vary by zoning and planned-unit-development context under city code | yesboolean | Current guidance accessed August 2026 | City of Sacramento | Conditional relationship | [30] |
| The 2040 General Plan removed citywide minimum off-street parking requirements | yesboolean | 2040 General Plan adopted February 2024 | Sacramento, California | Context only | [31] |
| New drive-through restaurants are prohibited near high-frequency transit under the 2040 General Plan framework | yesboolean | 2040 General Plan adopted February 2024 | Sites near high-frequency transit in Sacramento | Conditional relationship | [31] |
| US 50 corridor rehabilitation project status as of August 2, 2026 | percent complete: 99; start date: 2020-07-06; estimated completion: 2026-11-02project status | Status accessed August 2, 2026 | US 50 from I-5 to Watt Avenue, Sacramento | Supports modeled relationship | [32] |
| Airport Boulevard loop-ramp peak demand cited in the I-5 auxiliary-lanes project rationale | 1,000vehicles per hour more than | Current project description accessed August 2026 | I-5 Airport Boulevard interchange, Sacramento | Conditional relationship | [33] |
| SacAdapt identifies heat, flood, wind, and winter storms as local hazards requiring adaptation | extreme heat, flooding, high wind, winter stormshazard categories | Plan approved April 2026 | Sacramento, California | Context only | [34] |
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 whose applicability is established at the report’s current geographic and operating scope.
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 75.09 after target-market demand +4.9 pts, referral ecosystem +0.6 pts, and labor and staffing friction -0.4 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. Reports are checked for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability before publication.
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
Local evidence supporting this report
The city page keeps the local sources used for its visible findings and metrics. Franchise-source provenance stays with the underlying franchise research rather than being duplicated across every city page.
- 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 city and neighborhood research tableInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4QuickFacts: Sacramento city, California
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households in Sacramento during the 2020-2024 ACS period, Owner-occupied housing-unit rate, and Retail sales in 2022
- 5ACS 2024 Data Profile: Sacramento city, California
Used for: Estimated housing units in 2024
- 6QuickFacts: Sacramento County, California
Used for: Residential building permits in 2024, Employer establishments in 2023, Employment at county employer establishments in 2023, and Annual payroll at county employer establishments in 2023
- 7
- 8Projects
Used for: Population living in the Sacramento-area floodplain, Damageable property protected by the regional flood-control system, and Levees and channels within the regional flood-control system
- 9Flood Zone Construction Requirements
Used for: Natomas A99 flood-zone designation effective date, New or substantially improved commercial buildings in Natomas A99 must be elevated or floodproofed to specified levels, and Flood-zone substantial-improvement threshold
- 10
- 11Commercial New Building Fees
Used for: SAFCA development impact fee applies to newly created damageable square footage in designated areas
- 12Fee Districts
Used for: Infrastructure fee schedules vary across named Sacramento districts
- 13Statewide Property Inventory Summary
Used for: State real-property leases in Sacramento County, State-leased office area in Sacramento County, State-leased storage and other area in Sacramento County, and Annual state rent for leased property in Sacramento County
- 14
- 15Governor Newsom orders return to office
Used for: Default state-agency in-office schedule under the 2025 return-to-office order
- 16Economy at a Glance: Sacramento–Roseville–Arden-Arcade, CA
Used for: Total nonfarm employment in June 2026, Government employment in June 2026, and Education and health services employment in June 2026
- 17Occupational Employment and Wages in Sacramento–Roseville–Folsom — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wage across all occupations in May 2025, Mean hourly wage for food preparation and serving occupations in May 2025, Mean hourly wage for healthcare support occupations in May 2025, and Mean hourly wage for personal care and service occupations in May 2025
- 18California Minimum Wage
Used for: California minimum wage effective January 1, 2026 and Minimum wage for covered fast-food workers
- 19Facts and Figures
Used for: UC Davis Health staff, UC Davis Health clinic visits in 2024, UC Davis Health emergency-department visits in 2024, and UC Davis Health inpatient admissions in 2024
- 20About UC Davis Health
Used for: UC Davis Health direct employees in the region
- 21Sacramento State enrollment reaches record high
Used for: Sacramento State fall 2025 enrollment
- 22Sacramento Office Figures Q2 2026
Used for: Sacramento office vacancy in Q2 2026
- 23Sacramento Office Market Report
Used for: Sacramento total office vacancy in Q2 2026 and Downtown Sacramento total office vacancy in Q2 2026
- 24Sacramento Industrial Market Report
Used for: Sacramento industrial direct vacancy in Q2 2026, Sacramento flex-space direct vacancy in Q2 2026, Sacramento flex-space availability in Q2 2026, and Sacramento flex-space asking rent in Q2 2026
- 25Sacramento Retail Market Report
Used for: Sacramento retail vacancy in Q2 2026 and Sacramento retail net absorption in Q2 2026
- 26Sacramento Retail Figures Q2 2026
Used for: Sacramento retail vacancy in Q2 2026 and Sacramento retail net absorption in Q2 2026
- 27Bid Opportunities and Procurement Thresholds
Used for: City procurement thresholds and quote requirements
- 28Site Plan and Design Review
Used for: Exterior development and specified physical changes generally require Site Plan and Design Review unless exempt
- 29Historic District Plans
Used for: Historic-district plans impose district-specific preservation and design requirements
- 30Zoning Frequently Asked Questions
Used for: Sign requirements vary by zoning and planned-unit-development context under city code
- 31Sacramento 2040 General Plan
Used for: The 2040 General Plan removed citywide minimum off-street parking requirements and New drive-through restaurants are prohibited near high-frequency transit under the 2040 General Plan framework
- 32US 50 Multimodal Corridor Enhancement and Rehabilitation Project
Used for: US 50 corridor rehabilitation project status as of August 2, 2026
- 33Sacramento I-5 Auxiliary Lanes Project
Used for: Airport Boulevard loop-ramp peak demand cited in the I-5 auxiliary-lanes project rationale
- 34SacAdapt Climate Adaptation and Resilience Plan
Used for: SacAdapt identifies heat, flood, wind, and winter storms as local hazards requiring adaptation
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.