70.2 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Cincinnati, Ohio
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Cincinnati, Ohio. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Legacy-system service complexity was a leading operating constraint.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
27Sources used
20Primary sources
33Local 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
0.9 points average among 11 affected concepts
0.6 points average reduction among 7 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 10 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Cincinnati, Ohio
City Wide, FASTSIGNS, and Jan-Pro International 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 point on average. One important asymmetry was that the same local condition supported replacement and repair demand while also creating legacy-system service complexity. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing local business demand moved it from #1 to #7 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 | 72.1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.1 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 71.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.9 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.9 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 71.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.7 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.8 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.8 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Cincinnati, Ohio
City-scale household, employer, healthcare, logistics, and institutional bases support broad local business demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 1 point on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Households in the 2020-2024 estimate period: 144,297 households. [4] [19]
Large pre-1970 and pre-1940 housing cohorts support replacement demand while increasing system complexity
The same local condition created complementary effects: replacement and repair demand supported exposed concepts while legacy-system service complexity constrained others. [5] [6]
asset-light-b2b
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was target-market demand, while the main constraint was property replacement-cycle demand. [7] [4] [19]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
City-scale household, employer, healthcare, logistics, and institutional bases support broad local business demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Renter cost burden and city poverty constrain discretionary spending for exposed consumer formats1 modeled effect
Discretionary-spending pressureTarget-market demand
Large pre-1970 and pre-1940 housing cohorts support replacement demand while increasing system complexity3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Total housing units in the 2024 ACS 1-year estimate: 160,935 housing units [5]
- Median year structure built: 1,952 year [6]
- Housing units constructed before 1970: 68 percent of housing units [5]
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Legacy-system service complexityLabor and staffing friction
Large healthcare, university, utility, and municipal account bases create referral and formal procurement opportunities3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Selected sector receipts and sales in 2022: health care and social assistance receipts usd thousands: 9,926,387; transportation and warehousing receipts usd thousands: 2,016,076; retail sales usd thousands: 4,510,231; accommodation and food services sales usd thousands: 1,229,501 [4]
- City vendor and solicitation process: departments supported approximate: 24; vendor registration required: yes; platforms: Vendor Self Service, Business Opportunities, Bonfire; solicitation types: ITB, RFP, RFQ, RFI process summary [18]
- MSD anticipated ten-year capital-improvement pipeline: anticipated capital improvements usd minimum: 1,000,000,000; horizon years: 10; solicitation targets: contractors, design builders, engineering firms usd and horizon [19]
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 alignment72.1
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +2.1 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +2.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.13 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 72.13 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#9
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.9
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +1.9 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.9 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.94 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 | +1.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 71.94 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.9 |
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
- Target-market demand +1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#7
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.9
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.9 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.9 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.87 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 | +1.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 71.87 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.9 |
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
- Target-market demand +1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#10
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.7
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +1.7 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 |
| +1.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.70 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
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 | +1.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 71.70 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- 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 +1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#6
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.1 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 |
| +1.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.14 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 | +1.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 71.14 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#6
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.37 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | +0.3 |
| 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 | 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 | 70.37 |
| 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
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#12
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.8 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.8 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.36 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
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 | +0.8 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.36 |
| 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
- Labor and staffing friction -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#11
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
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 |
| Net local movement | +0.26 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | 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 | 70.26 |
| 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
- 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
- #5–#13
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.7 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.8 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.22 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 | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | 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 | 70.22 |
| 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
- Labor and staffing friction -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#12
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.21 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.21 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- 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
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#11
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.19 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 | +0.6 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.19 |
| 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
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#11
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.7 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.9 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.9 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.16 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 | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| 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 | 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 | 70.16 |
| 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
- Labor and staffing friction -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.9 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.9 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.27 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| 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 | 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 | 69.73 |
| 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 -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.2
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.9 pts Target-market demand
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 |
| -0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.85 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 69.15 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.2 |
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 -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 72.13 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.1 |
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, 14 concepts changed position. Workout Anytime moved from #14 to #4, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted11 of 14
Average among affected+0.9 pts
Average across all concepts+0.7 pts
Concepts changing rank14
What we observed
- Resident Population Estimate On July 1, 2025314,367 people
- Households In The 2020 2024 Estimate Period144,297 households
- Selected Sector Receipts And Sales In 2022health care and social assistance receipts usd thousands: 9,926,387; transportation and warehousing receipts usd thousands: 2,016,076; retail sales usd thousands: 4,510,231; accommodation and food services sales usd thousands: 1,229,501
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+2.1 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+1.9 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.9 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+1.7 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.1 pts
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-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, 9 concepts changed position. Mr. Rooter moved from #9 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.6 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank9
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.8 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.7 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.7 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.6 pts
Observed model effectConflicting local evidence
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 9 concepts changed position. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors moved from #6 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected-0.6 pts
Average across all concepts-0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank9
Concepts challenged most
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-0.9 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.9 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.8 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.8 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.4 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Referral ecosystemNo 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 WideHighly sensitive · tested #1–#9
#2 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #2–#7
#3 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #3–#10
#4 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #4–#6
#5 HomeSmilesModerately sensitive · tested #4–#6
#6 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #2–#12
#7 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #5–#11
#8 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #5–#13
#9 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #7–#12
#10 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #1–#11
#11 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #3–#11
#12 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13
#13 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #9–#14
#14 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #8–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [7] [20] [21] [19] [26] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [6] [9] [8] [1]Competitive environment: [4] [22] [23] [26] [27]Labor and staffing friction: [12] [21] [1] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [24] [25] [4] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [9] [10] [11] [13] [14] [15] [16] [26] [27] [2] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [18] [19] [20] [21] [4] [23]Referral ecosystem: [4] [20] [21] [18] [19]Territory quality: [13] [14] [9] [24] [25] [26] [27] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [9] [10] [11] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [22] [23] [24] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +2.1 pts | — | — |
| #2 FASTSIGNS | +1.9 pts | — | — |
| #3 Jan-Pro International | +1.9 pts | — | — |
| #4 ActionCOACH | +1.7 pts | — | — |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +1.1 pts | — | — |
| #6 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.2 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #7 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.4 pts | +0.8 pts | -0.8 pts |
| #8 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | — | — |
| #9 Mr. Rooter | +0.3 pts | +0.7 pts | -0.8 pts |
| #10 Rainbow International Restoration | — | +0.6 pts | -0.3 pts |
| #11 PuroClean | — | +0.6 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #12 Aire Serv | +0.3 pts | +0.7 pts | -0.9 pts |
| #13 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.6 pts | -0.9 pts |
| #14 Workout Anytime | -0.9 pts | — | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, FASTSIGNS, Jan-Pro International 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 City Wide, FASTSIGNS, Jan-Pro International; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Cincinnati, Ohio
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.2Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Cincinnati, Ohio
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.2 to 70.2. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.2. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.6 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.4 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.0-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.2–70.2
- Category average
- 70.2
Rainbow International Restoration70.2
PuroClean70.2
Metric registry
The 33 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 | 314,367people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 business and receipts measures | Cincinnati, Ohio | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 1.5percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 business and receipts measures | Cincinnati, Ohio | Context only | [4] |
| Households in the 2020-2024 estimate period | 144,297households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 business and receipts measures | Cincinnati, Ohio | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Employer firms in reference year 2022 | 5,407employer firms | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 business and receipts measures | Cincinnati, Ohio | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Selected sector receipts and sales in 2022 | health care and social assistance receipts usd thousands: 9,926,387; transportation and warehousing receipts usd thousands: 2,016,076; retail sales usd thousands: 4,510,231; accommodation and food services sales usd thousands: 1,229,501usd thousands | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 business and receipts measures | Cincinnati, Ohio | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing-unit rate | 39.8percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 business and receipts measures | Cincinnati, Ohio | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Household income and poverty measures | median household income usd: 52,909; per capita income usd: 40,324; persons in poverty percent: 25.5mixed | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 business and receipts measures | Cincinnati, Ohio | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Renter households spending at least 30 percent of income on gross rent among households with a computed ratio | 53.1percent of computable renter households | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimate | Cincinnati, Ohio | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Total housing units in the 2024 ACS 1-year estimate | 160,935housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimate | Cincinnati, Ohio | Supports modeled relationship | [5] |
| Median year structure built | 1,952year | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimate | Cincinnati, Ohio | Supports modeled relationship | [6] |
| Housing units constructed before 1970 | 68percent of housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimate | Cincinnati, Ohio | Supports modeled relationship | [5] |
| Housing units constructed in 1939 or earlier | 41.7percent of housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimate | Cincinnati, Ohio | Supports modeled relationship | [5] |
| Property owner responsibility for private sewer lateral repair | Property owners are responsible for private sewer laterals on private property, while licensed MSD sewer tappers are required for permit work.rule summary | Current requirements accessed August 2026 | MSD service area including Cincinnati | Supports modeled relationship | [9] |
| Average treated-water hardness by GCWW plant | richard miller plant mg per l: 126; richard miller plant grains per gallon: 7; charles bolton plant mg per l: 140; charles bolton plant grains per gallon: 8mixed | Calendar year 2025 water-quality data | GCWW service area including Cincinnati | Context only | [8] |
| MSD review and permit gates for sewer-related development | request for availability examples: new construction, modification increasing or changing use, lot split; licensed tapper required: yesrule summary | Current requirements accessed August 2026 | MSD service area including Cincinnati | Conditional relationship | [9] |
| MSD sewer tap permit fees by water-meter size | three quarter inch usd: 5,900; one inch usd: 10,680; one and half inch usd: 24,430; two inch usd: 43,980; three inch usd: 99,720; four inch usd: 178,080; six inch usd: 402,820; eight inch usd: 717,230; additional values omittedusd | Effective January 1, 2026 | MSD service area including Cincinnati | Conditional relationship | [10] |
| MSD building-sewer inspection fee schedule | minimum positive fee usd: 120; fee for 1251 to 1400 feet usd: 960; over 1400 feet basis: two hours of inspection time per eight-hour shiftusd and rule | Effective January 1, 2026 | MSD service area including Cincinnati | Conditional relationship | [11] |
| Selected major occupational-group mean hourly wages | all occupations cincinnati usd per hour: 32.39; all occupations us usd per hour: 33.54; building and grounds cincinnati: 18.79; building and grounds us: 19.66; food preparation cincinnati: 17.37; food preparation us: 17.86; personal care cincinnati: 18.03; personal care us: 19.74; additional values omittedusd per hour | May 2025 | Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN MSA | Context only | [12] |
| Property rules depend on base and overlay zoning districts | Cincinnati zoning review can involve base districts and overlays such as historic, urban design, hillside, and urban parking districts; applicability must be resolved by property.rule summary | Current zoning framework accessed August 2026 | Cincinnati, Ohio | Conditional relationship | [13] [3] |
| Locally designated historic inventory | individual landmarks: 52; historic districts: 26designations | Current designated inventory accessed August 2026 | Cincinnati, Ohio | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| Certificate of Appropriateness gate for local landmarks | All exterior changes and some publicly accessible interior changes at locally designated landmarks require Certificate of Appropriateness review against property-specific guidelines.rule summary | Current requirements accessed August 2026 | Locally designated Cincinnati landmarks | Conditional relationship | [15] |
| Sign permit and zoning review requirements | Business signage generally requires permit and zoning review; historic status and exact sign characteristics can add review requirements.rule summary | Current permit guidance accessed August 2026 | Cincinnati premises and proposed signs | Conditional relationship | [16] [13] |
| City contractor registration requirement and fee | initial non state licensed registration usd per year: 131.25; permit issuance requires applicable contractors registered: yes; exemptions apply: yesusd and rule | Current registration rules and fees accessed August 2026 | Cincinnati, Ohio | Context only | [17] |
| City vendor and solicitation process | departments supported approximate: 24; vendor registration required: yes; platforms: Vendor Self Service, Business Opportunities, Bonfire; solicitation types: ITB, RFP, RFQ, RFIprocess summary | Current procurement process accessed August 2026 | City of Cincinnati | Supports modeled relationship | [18] |
| MSD anticipated ten-year capital-improvement pipeline | anticipated capital improvements usd minimum: 1,000,000,000; horizon years: 10; solicitation targets: contractors, design builders, engineering firmsusd and horizon | Ten-year forward capital program accessed August 2026 | MSD service area | Used in scoring | [19] |
| University of Cincinnati official fall 2025 enrollment | total enrollment: 53,682; online learners: 9,534; undergraduate enrollment all campuses: 42,566students | Fall 2025 official enrollment | University of Cincinnati, all campuses and online | Supports modeled relationship | [20] |
| Cincinnati Children's workforce and patient activity | employees minimum: 19,500; patient encounters fy2025 minimum: 1,750,000; community benefit usd fy2024: 593,980,000mixed | Fiscal year 2025 with selected FY2024 community-benefit measures | Cincinnati Children's health system | Supports modeled relationship | [21] |
| Commercial waste-hauler franchise requirement | Commercial waste hauling, including commercial construction and demolition debris, requires a City franchise; unfranchised operation is a Class D civil offense.rule summary | Current ordinance and administrative rules accessed August 2026 | Cincinnati, Ohio | Supports research conclusion | [22] |
| Current commercial-waste franchise holders listed by the City | 23franchise holders | Current list accessed August 2026 | Cincinnati, Ohio | Context only | [23] |
| Streetcar right-of-way work authorization | trackway access authorization required: yes; dote right of way permit required: yes; training required for potential obstruction or encroachment: yesrule summary | Current requirements accessed August 2026 | Cincinnati Connector streetcar right-of-way | Conditional relationship | [24] |
| Brent Spence Bridge Corridor construction timeline | heavy construction start: 2026-05-08; new companion bridge expected open: 2,031; approach work expected substantially complete: 2,033; corridor length miles: 8; ohio segment miles approximate: 3mixed | Heavy construction beginning 2026; opening and completion milestones through 2033 | Brent Spence Bridge Corridor, Ohio and Kentucky | Conditional relationship | [25] |
| Greater Cincinnati office vacancy in Q2 2026 | 25.9percent | Second quarter 2026 | Greater Cincinnati office market | Conditional relationship | [26] |
| Greater Cincinnati industrial vacancy estimates in Q2 2026 | cushman and wakefield percent: 5.1; cbre percent: 4; cbre availability percent: 5.6percent | Second quarter 2026 | Greater Cincinnati industrial market | Conditional relationship | [26] [27] |
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 72.13 after target-market demand +2.1 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 claims or metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is clearly distinguished from publicly accessible evidence.
- 1United States Structural Inefficiency and CRE Arbitrage AuditInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Jurisdictional Friction and Structural Capital Constraints: A Forensic Audit of Municipal Operating EnvironmentsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise neighborhood operating-condition recordsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Property rules depend on base and overlay zoning districts
- 4QuickFacts: Cincinnati city, Ohio
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households in the 2020-2024 estimate period, Employer firms in reference year 2022, and Selected sector receipts and sales in 2022
- 5ACS 2024 1-Year Table B25034: Year Structure Built
Used for: Total housing units in the 2024 ACS 1-year estimate, Housing units constructed before 1970, and Housing units constructed in 1939 or earlier
- 6ACS 2024 1-Year Table B25035: Median Year Structure Built
Used for: Median year structure built
- 7ACS 2024 1-Year Table B25070: Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income
Used for: Renter households spending at least 30 percent of income on gross rent among households with a computed ratio
- 82025 Water Quality Report
Used for: Average treated-water hardness by GCWW plant
- 9Development Services
Used for: Property owner responsibility for private sewer lateral repair and MSD review and permit gates for sewer-related development
- 10MSD Sewer Tap Permit Fees and Document Requirements
Used for: MSD sewer tap permit fees by water-meter size
- 11MSD Building Sewer Inspection Fees
Used for: MSD building-sewer inspection fee schedule
- 12Occupational Employment and Wages in Cincinnati - May 2025
Used for: Selected major occupational-group mean hourly wages
- 13Zoning Administration
Used for: Property rules depend on base and overlay zoning districts and Sign permit and zoning review requirements
- 14Local Historic Designation
Used for: Locally designated historic inventory
- 15Local Historic Landmarks
Used for: Certificate of Appropriateness gate for local landmarks
- 16Frequently Asked Questions
Used for: Sign permit and zoning review requirements
- 17Contractor Registration
Used for: City contractor registration requirement and fee
- 18Office of Procurement and Vendor Registration
Used for: City vendor and solicitation process
- 19Upcoming Major Projects
Used for: MSD anticipated ten-year capital-improvement pipeline
- 20Another record year of enrollment for the University of Cincinnati
Used for: University of Cincinnati official fall 2025 enrollment
- 21Cincinnati Children's shares Community Impact Report
Used for: Cincinnati Children's workforce and patient activity
- 22Commercial Waste Hauler Program
Used for: Commercial waste-hauler franchise requirement
- 23Current Franchise Holders
Used for: Current commercial-waste franchise holders listed by the City
- 24Streetcar Trackway Access Authorization Requirements
Used for: Streetcar right-of-way work authorization
- 25Brent Spence Bridge Corridor Fact Sheet and Timeline
Used for: Brent Spence Bridge Corridor construction timeline
- 26Cincinnati MarketBeat Reports
Used for: Greater Cincinnati office vacancy in Q2 2026 and Greater Cincinnati industrial vacancy estimates in Q2 2026
- 27Cincinnati Industrial Figures Q2 2026
Used for: Greater Cincinnati industrial vacancy estimates in Q2 2026
Before contacting a franchisor
Complete the next layer of due diligence
- Confirm the exact protected territory and neighboring units.
- Review the current Franchise Disclosure Document.
- Validate local staffing, licensing, insurance, and service-base assumptions.
- Obtain location, vehicle, buildout, or working-capital estimates.
- Speak with current and former franchisees.
- Build a candidate-specific financial scenario.
Apply the analysis to your situation
Review how these market findings apply to your budget, role, and proposed territory.
The city score does not include your experience, capital structure, time commitment, financing, or exact territory.
Disclaimer and broker disclosure: This analysis is informational and does not constitute financial, legal, accounting, or investment advice. Market-alignment scores do not predict financial performance or business success. Offers are made only through the delivery of a Franchise Disclosure Document. We may receive referral compensation from participating franchisors; compensation is not an input to the scoring model.