70.8 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Cleveland, Ohio
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Cleveland, Ohio. Replacement and repair 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
25Sources used
15Primary sources
34Local 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 7 affected concepts
0.6 points average reduction among 7 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 8 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Cleveland, Ohio
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, and Rainbow International Restoration produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Replacement and repair demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 7 exposed concepts, adding 0.6 points on average. One important asymmetry was that the same local condition supported replacement and repair demand while also creating legacy-system service complexity. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 72.2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +1.5 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.4 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.2 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsReferral ecosystem | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.4 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.3 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.8 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Cleveland, Ohio
Predominantly older housing stock supports repair and replacement demand while increasing diagnostic and licensed-trade complexity
The same local condition created complementary effects: replacement and repair demand supported exposed concepts while legacy-system service complexity constrained others. [19] [18]
skilled-trade-route-service
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was property replacement-cycle demand, while the main constraint was labor and staffing friction. [19] [18] [6] [5] [23] [22] [12] [14] [15] [24] [1]
Downtown, University Circle, neighborhood commercial corridors, and metropolitan industrial markets present materially different demand, access, and facility conditions
Requires the actual franchise territory, proposed site or service base, customer mix, and route footprint. [8] [1]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Predominantly older housing stock supports repair and replacement demand while increasing diagnostic and licensed-trade complexity3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Share of Cleveland homes reported by the city as built before 1980: 80 percent of homes [5]
- Rental properties built before 1978 must obtain Lead Safe Certification or an exemption; owner-occupied properties are not covered: covered property type: rental property; construction cutoff year: 1,978; owner occupied exempt: yes rule [5] [6]
- Contractors building or rehabilitating Cleveland homes must be bonded, insured, and registered; electricians and plumbers must also be licensed: contractor requirements: bonded, insured, registered; additional trade license required: electrician, plumber; residential plan review usd per 1000 sqft: 20; residential plan review minimum usd: 20; typical one two family review days: 3, 5 mixed [18]
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Legacy-system service complexityLabor and staffing friction
Recurring winter snowfall, freeze-thaw conditions, and municipal snow operations affect repair demand and route reliability3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Normal annual snowfall at Cleveland: 63.8 inches per year [24]
- City guidance states that winter freeze-thaw cycles, salting, and plowing significantly affect Cleveland streets: street network approximate count: 10,200; pothole crews typical range: 10, 12 qualitative with counts [23]
- Street plowing and salting thresholds and snow-ban access rules: main street response snowfall inches: 0.5; typical residential plowing threshold inches: 2; snow ban signs require parking compliance: yes rule [22]
Freeze-thaw repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Winter route frictionTransportation, routing, and parking
Cleveland Clinic and the city’s health-care economic base support institution-facing service demand1 modeled effect
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
Major medical and university institutions support professional referral networks but use structured supplier procurement3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 4 sources
- Cleveland Clinic year-end system scale: caregivers worldwide: 83,000; hospitals: 23; outpatient locations: 300; unique patients worldwide: 3,600,000; patient encounters worldwide: 15,900,000 mixed [12]
- Case Western Reserve University enrollment and workforce in Fall 2025: students total: 12,398; board appointed faculty: 1,188; staff full and part time: 3,248 people [15] [3]
- Cleveland Clinic supplier registration enables capability review but does not guarantee bidder-list placement, approval, or a solicitation; rebids may use RFI and selected RFP distribution: supplier registration required for discovery: yes; registration guarantees bid: no; potential stages: capability profile review, evaluation team, RFI, selected RFP, evaluation, contract process [14]
Professional and institutional relationship densityReferral ecosystem
Institutional procurement-cycle frictionSales and customer acquisition
Downtown destination anchors create substantial event-driven activity that is not equivalent to uniform seven-day demand3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Temporary special-event parking zones and no-parking restrictions apply on identified Gateway and Flats streets: special event rate usd per hour: 8; activation lead time hours: 2; ends at: event conclusion or 22:00, whichever comes first; named no parking streets: 8 mixed [21]
- Downtown storefront occupancy, openings, and net business change: storefront occupancy percent: 82; business openings: 22; net business change: 12 mixed [8]
- Annual visitors to Downtown Cleveland: 39.5 million visitors [8] [1]
Event-driven demand upsideTarget-market demand
Event-demand volatilityTarget-market demand
Downtown event parking zones and temporary street restrictions can reduce route and curb reliability1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.2
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.5 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 | +1.5 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.15 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 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 | +1.5 |
| 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 | Effect below the publication threshold |
| 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 | +0.7 |
| 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 | 72.15 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.2 |
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 +1.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#3
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.1 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.2 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.2 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| 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
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 | +1.1 |
| 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 | -0.2 |
| 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 | +0.2 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.06 |
| 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
- Limited
- 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
- #2–#10
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +1.0 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.4 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.0 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand | +0.2 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.97 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.0 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.97 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.0 |
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
- Property replacement-cycle demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#7
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.2 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand | +0.5 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.2 pts |
| 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 | +0.5 |
| 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 | -0.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.91 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#5
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.6 pts Referral ecosystemNo 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand | +0.3 pts | |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.86 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 70.86 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#7
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.84 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 | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.84 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#7
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +1.0 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.4 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.0 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.68 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 | +1.0 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.68 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#9
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.3 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.13 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.3 |
| 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 | 70.13 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#11
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: 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.
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 | 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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–#13
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +1.2 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.2 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.8 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.01 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.4 |
| 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 | 69.99 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#12
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.1 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.85 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#14
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
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 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.18 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.8 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.82 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#14
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.8 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 | +0.8 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.51 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 | +0.8 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.4 |
| 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 | 69.49 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
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: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.5 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.56 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 | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.5 |
| 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 | 69.44 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- 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
- #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 | +1.5 |
| 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 | Effect below the publication threshold |
| 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 | +0.7 |
| 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 | 72.15 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.2 |
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 effectMixed or model dependent
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 6 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #2 to #8, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted6 of 14
Average among affected+0.7 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank7
What we observed
- Health Care And Social Assistance Receipts Or Revenue In 202213,039,627,000 usd
- Cleveland Clinic Year End System Scalecaregivers worldwide: 83,000; hospitals: 23; outpatient locations: 300; unique patients worldwide: 3,600,000; patient encounters worldwide: 15,900,000 mixed
- Case Western Reserve University Enrollment And Workforce In Fall 2025students total: 12,398; board appointed faculty: 1,188; staff full and part time: 3,248 people
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.5 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.1 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.6 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.5 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.3 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, 10 concepts changed position. Rainbow International Restoration moved from #3 to #6, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.9 pts
Average across all concepts+0.4 pts
Concepts changing rank10
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+1.2 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+1.0 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+1.0 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.8 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.8 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 13 concepts changed position. PuroClean moved from #7 to #4, 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 rank13
Concepts challenged most
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-0.9 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.8 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.8 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.8 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.3 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Transportation, routing, and parking
We recalculated route-dependent models after accounting for travel corridors, parking, and the number of productive stops they require.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 11 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. PuroClean moved from #7 to #4, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted11 of 14
Average among affected-0.3 pts
Average across all concepts-0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Downtown Paid Parking Hours And Rates Introduced Or Adjusted For Summer 2026enforcement days: Monday-Saturday; enforcement hours: 07:00-22:00; standard rate usd per hour: 1.5; progressive rate hours 3 4 usd per hour: 3; special event rate usd per hour: 8 mixed
- Temporary Special Event Parking Zones And No Parking Restrictions Apply On Identified Gateway And Flats Streetsspecial event rate usd per hour: 8; activation lead time hours: 2; ends at: event conclusion or 22:00, whichever comes first; named no parking streets: 8 mixed
Concepts challenged most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.6 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.5 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-0.4 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.4 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.4 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Referral ecosystem
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 5 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #6 to #4, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.5 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank5
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.7 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.6 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.5 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.5 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideModerately sensitive · tested #1–#3
#2 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#10
#3 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #1–#7
#4 HomeSmilesModerately sensitive · tested #3–#5
#5 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #4–#7
#6 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #3–#7
#7 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #2–#9
#8 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #7–#11
#9 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #6–#13
#10 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #8–#12
#11 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #8–#14
#12 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #9–#14
#13 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #10–#14
#14 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #12–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [8] [12] [13] [15] [1] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [6] [18] [19] [24] [23] [7] [1]Competitive environment: [4] [8] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [11] [13] [12] [18] [19] [5] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [24] [22] [23] [20] [21] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [9] [10] [8] [16] [17] [25] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [14] [12] [15] [4]Referral ecosystem: [12] [14] [15] [4]Territory quality: [8] [15] [9] [10] [16] [20] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [16] [17] [5] [6] [18] [19] [25] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Transportation, routing, and parking | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +1.5 pts | — | — | — | +0.7 pts |
| #2 Jan-Pro International | +1.1 pts | — | — | -0.2 pts | +0.2 pts |
| #3 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.2 pts | +1.0 pts | -0.3 pts | -0.4 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #4 HomeSmiles | +0.5 pts | — | — | -0.2 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #5 ActionCOACH | +0.3 pts | — | — | — | +0.6 pts |
| #6 FASTSIGNS | +0.6 pts | — | — | -0.1 pts | +0.3 pts |
| #7 PuroClean | — | +1.0 pts | -0.3 pts | -0.4 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #8 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | +0.5 pts | -0.1 pts | -0.3 pts | — |
| #9 Workout Anytime | — | — | — | — | — |
| #10 Aire Serv | — | +1.2 pts | -0.8 pts | -0.4 pts | — |
| #11 Tiger Adjusters | — | — | — | -0.1 pts | — |
| #12 ZOOM DRAIN | — | +0.8 pts | -0.8 pts | -0.6 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #13 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.8 pts | -0.9 pts | -0.4 pts | — |
| #14 Mr. Rooter | — | +0.7 pts | -0.8 pts | -0.5 pts | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, Rainbow International Restoration led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from property replacement-cycle 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, Rainbow International Restoration, FASTSIGNS; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Cleveland, Ohio
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.8Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Cleveland, Ohio
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.7 to 71.0. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 71.0. Property replacement-cycle demand added 1 point on average among the affected concepts. Transportation, routing, and parking reduced the exposed concepts by 0.4 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.3-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.7–71.0
- Category average
- 70.8
Rainbow International Restoration71.0
PuroClean70.7
Metric registry
The 34 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 | 363,608people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census; 2023 business data where available | Cleveland, Ohio | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | -2.4percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census; 2023 business data where available | Cleveland, Ohio | Context only | [4] |
| Estimated households in the 2020-2024 period | 169,683households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census; 2023 business data where available | Cleveland, Ohio | Context only | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate | 41.7percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census; 2023 business data where available | Cleveland, Ohio | Context only | [4] |
| Median household income in 2024 dollars | 40,801usd per household per year | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census; 2023 business data where available | Cleveland, Ohio | Context only | [4] |
| Persons in poverty | 30.6percent of people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census; 2023 business data where available | Cleveland, Ohio | Context only | [4] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts or revenue in 2022 | 13,039,627,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census; 2023 business data where available | Cleveland, Ohio | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Total retail sales and retail sales per capita in 2022 | total retail sales usd: 2,817,793,000; retail sales per capita usd: 7,767mixed | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census; 2023 business data where available | Cleveland, Ohio | Context only | [4] |
| Annual visitors to Downtown Cleveland | 39.5million visitors | 2025 annual data snapshot published or presented in 2026 | Downtown Cleveland | Supports modeled relationship | [8] [1] |
| Downtown daytime population | 116,500people | 2025 annual data snapshot published or presented in 2026 | Downtown Cleveland | Conditional relationship | [8] [1] |
| Downtown retail spending attributed to consumers from outside Cuyahoga County | 70percent of downtown retail spending | 2025 annual data snapshot published or presented in 2026 | Downtown Cleveland | Conditional relationship | [8] [1] |
| Downtown office occupancy and average asking rent | occupancy percent: 80.2; implied vacancy percent: 19.8; average asking rent usd per sqft per year: 20.84mixed | 2025 annual data snapshot published or presented in 2026 | Downtown Cleveland | Context only | [8] |
| Downtown storefront occupancy, openings, and net business change | storefront occupancy percent: 82; business openings: 22; net business change: 12mixed | 2025 annual data snapshot published or presented in 2026 | Downtown Cleveland | Supports modeled relationship | [8] |
| Cleveland metropolitan office vacancy, class split, asking rent, leasing, and pipeline in Q2 2026 | overall vacancy percent: 19.9; class a vacancy percent: 18.2; class b vacancy percent: 21.6; asking rent usd per sqft per year: 19.44; quarterly leasing sqft: 310,000; construction pipeline sqft: 56,000mixed | Second quarter 2026 | Cleveland, Ohio metropolitan office market | Conditional relationship | [9] |
| Cleveland metropolitan industrial vacancy, availability, absorption, and construction pipeline in Q2 2026 | vacancy percent: 3.9; availability percent: 6; quarterly net absorption sqft: -166,000; construction pipeline sqft: 324,000mixed | Second quarter 2026 | Cleveland, Ohio metropolitan industrial market | Conditional relationship | [10] |
| Share of Cleveland homes reported by the city as built before 1980 | 80percent of homes | Current law and program guidance accessed August 2026 | Cleveland, Ohio | Supports modeled relationship | [5] |
| Rental properties built before 1978 must obtain Lead Safe Certification or an exemption; owner-occupied properties are not covered | covered property type: rental property; construction cutoff year: 1,978; owner occupied exempt: yesrule | Current law and program guidance accessed August 2026 | Cleveland, Ohio | Supports modeled relationship | [5] [6] |
| Lead Safe Certification is generally valid for two years, while qualifying full abatement may support a 20-year exemption | certification validity years: 2; full abatement exemption years: 20years | Current certification and remediation guidance accessed August 2026 | Covered pre-1978 Cleveland rental properties | Context only | [6] |
| Cleveland Water hardness reported as calcium carbonate, with a derived grains-per-gallon conversion | range mg per l as caco3: 105, 130; average mg per l as caco3: 117; derived range grains per gallon: 6.13, 7.59; derived average grains per gallon: 6.84mixed | Calendar year 2025 water-quality monitoring | Cleveland Water service area | Context only | [7] |
| Normal annual snowfall at Cleveland | 63.8inches per year | 1991-2020 climate normals | Cleveland Hopkins International Airport climate station | Supports modeled relationship | [24] |
| City guidance states that winter freeze-thaw cycles, salting, and plowing significantly affect Cleveland streets | street network approximate count: 10,200; pothole crews typical range: 10, 12qualitative with counts | Current street-maintenance guidance accessed August 2026 | Cleveland, Ohio street network | Supports modeled relationship | [23] |
| Street plowing and salting thresholds and snow-ban access rules | main street response snowfall inches: 0.5; typical residential plowing threshold inches: 2; snow ban signs require parking compliance: yesrule | Current winter operations policy accessed August 2026 | Cleveland, Ohio street network | Supports modeled relationship | [22] |
| Downtown paid-parking hours and rates introduced or adjusted for Summer 2026 | enforcement days: Monday-Saturday; enforcement hours: 07:00-22:00; standard rate usd per hour: 1.5; progressive rate hours 3 4 usd per hour: 3; special event rate usd per hour: 8mixed | Summer 2026 parking rates and enforcement hours | Downtown Cleveland parking zones | Conditional relationship | [20] |
| Temporary special-event parking zones and no-parking restrictions apply on identified Gateway and Flats streets | special event rate usd per hour: 8; activation lead time hours: 2; ends at: event conclusion or 22:00, whichever comes first; named no parking streets: 8mixed | Current event-specific restrictions accessed August 2026 | Gateway and Flats event corridors in Downtown Cleveland | Conditional relationship | [21] |
| Cleveland Clinic reports more than 48,000 employees and identifies itself as Northeast Ohio’s largest private employer | 48,000employees minimum | Current institutional overview accessed August 2026 | Northeast Ohio | Used in scoring | [13] [2] [3] |
| Cleveland Clinic year-end system scale | caregivers worldwide: 83,000; hospitals: 23; outpatient locations: 300; unique patients worldwide: 3,600,000; patient encounters worldwide: 15,900,000mixed | Official year-end totals as of December 31, 2025 | Cleveland Clinic health system | Used in scoring | [12] |
| Case Western Reserve University enrollment and workforce in Fall 2025 | students total: 12,398; board appointed faculty: 1,188; staff full and part time: 3,248people | Fall 2025 enrollment, faculty, and staff; FY2026 operating budget | Case Western Reserve University, University Circle, Cleveland | Used in scoring | [15] [3] |
| Cleveland Clinic supplier registration enables capability review but does not guarantee bidder-list placement, approval, or a solicitation; rebids may use RFI and selected RFP distribution | supplier registration required for discovery: yes; registration guarantees bid: no; potential stages: capability profile review, evaluation team, RFI, selected RFP, evaluation, contractprocess | Current supplier registration and bidding process accessed August 2026 | Cleveland Clinic enterprise procurement | Supports modeled relationship | [14] |
| Selected Cleveland metropolitan occupational shares and mean hourly wages in May 2025 | all occupations: share percent: 100, mean hourly wage usd: 31.88, us mean hourly wage usd: 33.54; healthcare practitioners technical: share percent: 8.2, mean hourly wage usd: 52.35; healthcare support: share percent: 4.5, mean hourly wage usd: 19.49; food preparation serving: share percent: 8.8, mean hourly wage usd: 16.95; building grounds cleaning maintenance: share percent: 2.8, mean hourly wage usd: 18.76; office administrative support: share percent: 11.4, mean hourly wage usd: 24.12; construction extraction: share percent: 3.2, mean hourly wage usd: 32.17, us mean hourly wage usd: 31.42; installation maintenance repair: share percent: 3.9, mean hourly wage usd: 29.61, us mean hourly wage usd: 30.44mixed | May 2025 | Cleveland, Ohio metropolitan statistical area | Context only | [11] |
| Design review applies to all new construction and exterior alterations within designated Design Review Districts and to specified new-construction project types outside those districts | inside design review districts: all new construction, exterior alterations to buildings and structures; outside design review districts new construction only: retail, offices, institutions, residentialrule | Current design-review rules accessed August 2026 | City of Cleveland | Conditional relationship | [16] [3] |
| Exterior and site changes to locally designated historic-district properties and Cleveland Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmarks Commission | property gate: designated Cleveland historic district, designated Cleveland Landmark parcel; covered changes: exterior changes, site changesrule | Current historic-district and landmark guidance accessed August 2026 | Cleveland historic districts and landmarks | Conditional relationship | [17] [3] |
| Contractors building or rehabilitating Cleveland homes must be bonded, insured, and registered; electricians and plumbers must also be licensed | contractor requirements: bonded, insured, registered; additional trade license required: electrician, plumber; residential plan review usd per 1000 sqft: 20; residential plan review minimum usd: 20; typical one two family review days: 3, 5mixed | Current permit and contractor requirements accessed August 2026 | Cleveland, Ohio | Supports modeled relationship | [18] |
| Exterior-wall inspections are required every five years for buildings that exceed both height thresholds and are at least 30 years old | minimum stories exclusive: 5; minimum height feet exclusive: 75; minimum building age years: 30; inspection cycle years: 5; qualified inspector required: yesrule | Current ordinance guidance accessed August 2026 | City of Cleveland buildings meeting height and age thresholds | Supports modeled relationship | [19] |
| Cleveland Water Pollution Control sewer permit and plan-review fees for 2026 | lay permit usd: 763; extend permit usd: 863; repair permit usd: 597; commercial parcel plan review usd per foot: 136; stormwater plan review less than one acre usd: 428; new sewer inspection usd per hour: 160usd or rate | 2025-2029 adopted fee schedule; 2026 rates current at access | Cleveland Water Pollution Control permit jurisdiction | Context only | [25] [2] |
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 72.15 after target-market demand +1.5 pts and referral ecosystem +0.7 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.
Used for: Annual visitors to Downtown Cleveland, Downtown daytime population, and Downtown retail spending attributed to consumers from outside Cuyahoga County
- 2Jurisdictional Friction and Structural Capital Constraints: A Forensic Audit of Municipal Operating EnvironmentsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Cleveland Clinic reports more than 48,000 employees and identifies itself as Northeast Ohio’s largest private employer and Cleveland Water Pollution Control sewer permit and plan-review fees for 2026
- 3Franchise data - Riverside through CharlotteInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Cleveland Clinic reports more than 48,000 employees and identifies itself as Northeast Ohio’s largest private employer, Case Western Reserve University enrollment and workforce in Fall 2025, Design review applies to all new construction and exterior alterations within designated Design Review Districts and to specified new-construction project types outside those districts, and Exterior and site changes to locally designated historic-district properties and Cleveland Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmarks Commission
- 4QuickFacts: Cleveland city, Ohio
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Estimated households in the 2020-2024 period, Owner-occupied housing unit rate, and Median household income in 2024 dollars
- 5Lead Safe Program
Used for: Share of Cleveland homes reported by the city as built before 1980 and Rental properties built before 1978 must obtain Lead Safe Certification or an exemption; owner-occupied properties are not covered
- 6Landlord/Owner Responsibilities
Used for: Rental properties built before 1978 must obtain Lead Safe Certification or an exemption; owner-occupied properties are not covered and Lead Safe Certification is generally valid for two years, while qualifying full abatement may support a 20-year exemption
- 72025 Water Quality Report
Used for: Cleveland Water hardness reported as calcium carbonate, with a derived grains-per-gallon conversion
- 8State of Downtown
Used for: Annual visitors to Downtown Cleveland, Downtown daytime population, Downtown retail spending attributed to consumers from outside Cuyahoga County, Downtown office occupancy and average asking rent, and Downtown storefront occupancy, openings, and net business change
- 9Cleveland Office Figures Q2 2026
Used for: Cleveland metropolitan office vacancy, class split, asking rent, leasing, and pipeline in Q2 2026
- 10Cleveland Industrial Figures Q2 2026
Used for: Cleveland metropolitan industrial vacancy, availability, absorption, and construction pipeline in Q2 2026
- 11Occupational Employment and Wages in Cleveland, OH — May 2025
Used for: Selected Cleveland metropolitan occupational shares and mean hourly wages in May 2025
- 12Facts & Figures
Used for: Cleveland Clinic year-end system scale
- 13About Cleveland Clinic
Used for: Cleveland Clinic reports more than 48,000 employees and identifies itself as Northeast Ohio’s largest private employer
- 14Supply Chain Management
Used for: Cleveland Clinic supplier registration enables capability review but does not guarantee bidder-list placement, approval, or a solicitation; rebids may use RFI and selected RFP distribution
- 15CWRU at a Glance
Used for: Case Western Reserve University enrollment and workforce in Fall 2025
- 16Design Review Committee
Used for: Design review applies to all new construction and exterior alterations within designated Design Review Districts and to specified new-construction project types outside those districts
- 17Design Standards and Guidelines
Used for: Exterior and site changes to locally designated historic-district properties and Cleveland Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmarks Commission
- 18Contractor Permits
Used for: Contractors building or rehabilitating Cleveland homes must be bonded, insured, and registered; electricians and plumbers must also be licensed
- 19Ordinances
Used for: Exterior-wall inspections are required every five years for buildings that exceed both height thresholds and are at least 30 years old
- 20Street Parking
Used for: Downtown paid-parking hours and rates introduced or adjusted for Summer 2026
- 21City of Cleveland Announces Parking Information for Weekend Events and Traffic Updates to Gateway & Flats Districts
Used for: Temporary special-event parking zones and no-parking restrictions apply on identified Gateway and Flats streets
- 22Snow & Ice Control and Emergencies
Used for: Street plowing and salting thresholds and snow-ban access rules
- 23Potholes
Used for: City guidance states that winter freeze-thaw cycles, salting, and plowing significantly affect Cleveland streets
- 24Cleveland Normals
Used for: Normal annual snowfall at Cleveland
- 25Permits
Used for: Cleveland Water Pollution Control sewer permit and plan-review fees for 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.