69.8 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Columbus, Ohio
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Columbus, Ohio. Household service demand was a leading positive mechanism. Broad labor scarcity 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
35Sources used
21Primary sources
35Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
1 point average among 13 affected concepts
0.3 points average reduction among 10 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 11 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Columbus, Ohio
City Wide, HomeSmiles, and Pillar To Post Home Inspectors produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Household service demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 8 exposed concepts, adding 0.8 points on average. Broad labor scarcity was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.3 points on average. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors was especially relationship-sensitive: removing household service demand moved it from #3 to #10 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 | 72.4Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 71.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.9 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Columbus, Ohio
Population and housing authorization growth expands the potential household-service base
This relationship affected 8 concepts and added 0.8 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Households during the 2020-2024 QuickFacts reference period: 390,528 households. [7] [9]
Low metropolitan unemployment and rapid construction employment growth indicate broad near-term hiring pressure
This relationship affected 10 concepts and reduced 0.3 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Mining, logging, and construction employment and year-over-year change in June 2026: employment: 68,900; year over year change percent: 10.6; status: preliminary jobs and percent. [16] [15]
recurring-commercial-service
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 labor and staffing friction. [16] [15] [18] [17]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Population and housing authorization growth expands the potential household-service base1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
Large university and government employment bases support institutional accounts and professional referrals3 local facts · 3 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Government employment in June 2026: employment: 191,300; status: preliminary jobs [16]
- Students on The Ohio State University Columbus campus: 60,000 students minimum [17]
- Residence-hall population and daily meals at two primary campus dining facilities: residence hall students minimum: 17,000; daily meals minimum: 10,000 people and meals [17]
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Campus-contained demand constraintTarget-market demand
Institutional professional relationship baseReferral ecosystem
Nationwide Children’s and the broader education-health sector create a sizable institutional service market3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Education and health services employment in June 2026: employment: 186,700; status: preliminary jobs [16]
- Nationwide Children's Hospital total employees: 16,557 employees [18]
- Nationwide Children's Columbus licensed beds and Columbus-specific annual outpatient activity components: licensed beds: 696; columbus outpatient visits selected components total: 1,847,100 beds and visits [18]
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
Campus-contained consumer demandTarget-market demand
Low metropolitan unemployment and rapid construction employment growth indicate broad near-term hiring pressure1 modeled effect
Broad labor scarcityLabor and staffing friction
Multi-year downtown interstate reconstruction creates route-specific detours and access changes1 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Public and institutional buyers provide opportunity but require formal vendor and compliance processes1 modeled effect
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 alignment72.4
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +2.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.2 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.43 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.43 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.4 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.5
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.8 pts Target-market 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.8 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.47 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.47 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.5 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#10
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.3
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +1.2 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.2 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.34 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.34 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.3 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#7
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.12 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.12 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#8
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.11 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.11 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#7
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.7 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -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 |
|---|---|---|
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.7 pts |
| Target-market demand | +0.5 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.10 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.7 |
| 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 | 71.10 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#10
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.8 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 |
| +0.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.02 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.02 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#9
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.8 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 |
| +0.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.00 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.00 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#10
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.95 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.1 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.95 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#9
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.6 pts Target-market 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.6 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.9 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.73 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.73 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#14
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: 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 |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.25 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.25 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#13
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.02 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.02 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand | +0.3 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.12 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.88 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.33 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | 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 | 69.67 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.43 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.4 |
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 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 14 concepts changed position. HomeSmiles moved from #2 to #10, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected+1.0 pts
Average across all concepts+0.9 pts
Concepts changing rank14
What we observed
- Population Change From The April 2020 Estimate Base To July 20253.6 percent
- Households During The 2020 2024 Quickfacts Reference Period390,528 households
- New Homes Authorized During 20259,100 housing units approximate
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+2.2 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.8 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.6 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+1.2 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+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, 5 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #4 to #8, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.2 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank5
What we observed
- Mining, Logging, And Construction Employment And Year Over Year Change In June 2026employment: 68,900; year over year change percent: 10.6; status: preliminary jobs and percent
- Estimated Housing Units In 2024436,552 housing units
- Housing Units Reported As Built From 1990 Through 200926.83 percent of housing units
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.3 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.2 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.2 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.2 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.1 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 10 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #10 to #3, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted10 of 14
Average among affected-0.3 pts
Average across all concepts-0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Mean Hourly Wages For Operating Relevant Major Occupational Groupsall occupations: 32.34; food preparation and serving: 17.24; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: 19.14; healthcare support: 19.25; office and administrative support: 24.52; construction and extraction: 33.55; installation maintenance and repair: 30.67; transportation and material moving: 23.6 usd per hour
- Preliminary Unemployment Rate In June 20263.3 percent
- Mining, Logging, And Construction Employment And Year Over Year Change In June 2026employment: 68,900; year over year change percent: 10.6; status: preliminary jobs and percent
Concepts challenged most
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-0.9 pts
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.6 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-0.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.4 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
-0.3 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Referral ecosystem
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 3 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 5 concepts changed position. ActionCOACH moved from #6 to #10, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted3 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank5
Concepts helped most
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.7 pts
City WideFacility management
+0.5 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.1 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideStable · tested #1–#2
#2 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #2–#10
#3 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #3–#7
#4 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #4–#8
#5 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #4–#7
#6 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #1–#10
#7 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #5–#9
#8 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #3–#10
#9 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #5–#9
#10 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #3–#14
#11 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #9–#13
#12 Workout AnytimeModerately sensitive · tested #11–#13
#13 Rainbow International RestorationStable · tested #12–#13
#14 PuroCleanModerately sensitive · tested #11–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [7] [8] [9] [17] [18] [16] [22] [24] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [10] [8] [11] [12] [28] [16] [3]Competitive environment: [7] [16] [22] [23] [24] [5] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [15] [16] [20] [34] [18] [3] [4]Transportation, routing, and parking: [26] [27] [28] [7] [5]Real estate and site feasibility: [22] [23] [24] [25] [13] [14] [3] [4]Sales and customer acquisition: [19] [21] [20] [17] [18] [7] [3]Referral ecosystem: [17] [18] [16] [19] [21]Territory quality: [33] [29] [26] [28] [22] [23] [24] [17] [5]Regulatory and operating friction: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [35] [34] [13] [20] [4] [5]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +2.2 pts | — | -0.2 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #2 HomeSmiles | +1.8 pts | — | -0.3 pts | — |
| #3 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +1.2 pts | +0.1 pts | — | — |
| #4 Aire Serv | +0.9 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.1 pts | — |
| #5 Mr. Rooter | +0.9 pts | +0.2 pts | — | — |
| #6 ActionCOACH | +0.5 pts | — | -0.1 pts | +0.7 pts |
| #7 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.8 pts | +0.2 pts | — | — |
| #8 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.8 pts | +0.2 pts | — | — |
| #9 FASTSIGNS | +0.9 pts | — | -0.1 pts | +0.1 pts |
| #10 Jan-Pro International | +1.6 pts | — | -0.9 pts | — |
| #11 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | — | -0.1 pts | — |
| #12 Workout Anytime | +0.7 pts | — | -0.6 pts | — |
| #13 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.3 pts | +0.1 pts | -0.5 pts | — |
| #14 PuroClean | — | +0.1 pts | -0.4 pts | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, HomeSmiles, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors 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 HomeSmiles, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Aire Serv; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Columbus, Ohio
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.8Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Columbus, Ohio
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.7 to 69.9. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 69.9. Target-market demand added 0.1 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.4 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.2-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 69.7–69.9
- Category average
- 69.8
Rainbow International Restoration69.9
PuroClean69.7
Metric registry
The 35 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 938,396people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 socioeconomic measures | Columbus, Ohio | Context only | [7] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 3.6percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 socioeconomic measures | Columbus, Ohio | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Households during the 2020-2024 QuickFacts reference period | 390,528households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 socioeconomic measures | Columbus, Ohio | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Estimated housing units in 2024 | 436,552housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates | Columbus, Ohio | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate | 44.1percent of occupied housing units | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 socioeconomic measures | Columbus, Ohio | Context only | [7] |
| New homes authorized during 2025 | 9,100housing units approximate | Housing permits authorized during calendar year 2025 | Columbus, Ohio | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Change in new homes authorized from 2024 to 2025 | 50percent increase | Housing permits authorized during calendar year 2025 | Columbus, Ohio | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Housing units reported as built from 1990 through 2009 | 26.83percent of housing units | 2021 Census/ACS-derived housing age table as labeled by publisher | Columbus, Ohio | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Housing units classified as high risk in three initial lead-remediation target communities | 24,000housing units | Current program page and 2024-2025 year-in-review links | Near East/Livingston Avenue Corridor, Greater Linden, and South Side, Columbus | Context only | [11] |
| Average treated municipal water hardness | ppm: 120; grains per gallon: 7; classification: moderately hardwater hardness | Current water treatment standard accessed August 2026 | Columbus municipal water system | Context only | [12] |
| Current sanitary sewer charges for a 2-inch connection | permit fee usd: 85; front footage charge usd per linear foot: 45; capacity charge usd: 27,801usd | Current charges accessed August 2026 | Properties eligible for City of Columbus sanitary sewer service | Context only | [13] |
| Approved utility rate increases effective January 1, 2026 | water percent: 18; sewer percent: 8; stormwater percent: 2percent increase | Rates effective January 1, 2026 | City utility customers; stormwater increase applies only in Columbus | Context only | [14] |
| Mean hourly wages for operating-relevant major occupational groups | all occupations: 32.34; food preparation and serving: 17.24; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: 19.14; healthcare support: 19.25; office and administrative support: 24.52; construction and extraction: 33.55; installation maintenance and repair: 30.67; transportation and material moving: 23.6usd per hour | May 2025 | Columbus, Ohio MSA | Used in scoring | [15] |
| Preliminary unemployment rate in June 2026 | 3.3percent | Monthly labor force and industry employment through June 2026; June preliminary | Columbus, Ohio MSA | Used in scoring | [16] |
| Mining, logging, and construction employment and year-over-year change in June 2026 | employment: 68,900; year over year change percent: 10.6; status: preliminaryjobs and percent | Monthly labor force and industry employment through June 2026; June preliminary | Columbus, Ohio MSA | Used in scoring | [16] |
| Government employment in June 2026 | employment: 191,300; status: preliminaryjobs | Monthly labor force and industry employment through June 2026; June preliminary | Columbus, Ohio MSA | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| Education and health services employment in June 2026 | employment: 186,700; status: preliminaryjobs | Monthly labor force and industry employment through June 2026; June preliminary | Columbus, Ohio MSA | Supports modeled relationship | [16] |
| Students on The Ohio State University Columbus campus | 60,000students minimum | Current campus activity description accessed August 2026 | The Ohio State University Columbus campus | Supports modeled relationship | [17] |
| Residence-hall population and daily meals at two primary campus dining facilities | residence hall students minimum: 17,000; daily meals minimum: 10,000people and meals | Current campus activity description accessed August 2026 | The Ohio State University Columbus campus | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| Nationwide Children's Hospital total employees | 16,557employees | Data reflects year ending December 31, 2024 | Nationwide Children's Hospital | Supports modeled relationship | [18] |
| Nationwide Children's Columbus licensed beds and Columbus-specific annual outpatient activity components | licensed beds: 696; columbus outpatient visits selected components total: 1,847,100beds and visits | Data reflects year ending December 31, 2024 | Nationwide Children's Columbus operations | Supports modeled relationship | [18] |
| City procurement requires vendor profile management, W-9, registration, compliance, and electronic bid information | vendor registration: yes; w9 management: yes; contract compliance: yes; electronic bidding: yesprocess requirements | Current vendor-registration process accessed August 2026 | City of Columbus | Conditional relationship | [19] [21] |
| Responsible wage applicable to City service contracts executed, modified, or renewed starting January 1, 2027 | 21.37usd per hour | Current page including 2027 responsible wage | City of Columbus service contracts | Conditional relationship | [20] |
| Columbus office market conditions in Q2 2026 | vacancy percent: 21.4; availability percent: 23.5; net absorption sqft: 93,000; leasing activity sqft: 435,000; average asking rent usd per sqft year: 23.15mixed cre metrics | Second quarter 2026 | Columbus office market | Conditional relationship | [22] |
| Columbus industrial market conditions in Q2 2026 | vacancy percent: 5.2; availability percent: 6.8; net absorption sqft: 1,900,000; average asking rent usd per sqft: 6.76; construction pipeline sqft: 9,000,000mixed cre metrics | Second quarter 2026 | Columbus industrial market | Conditional relationship | [23] |
| Columbus retail market conditions in Q1 2026 | vacancy percent: greater than 3; net absorption sqft: -250,445; sales volume usd: 86,000,000mixed cre metrics | First quarter 2026 | Columbus retail market | Conditional relationship | [24] |
| Industrial size-band evidence emphasized constraints in large modern bulk space rather than service-size small bays | total market vacancy percent: 5.19; modern bulk vacancy percent: 5.57; speculative projects max size sqft: 400,000; available options 500k to 800k sqft: 0mixed cre metrics | First quarter 2026 | Columbus industrial market | Supports research conclusion | [25] |
| Daily traffic and truck volume on the downtown I-70/I-71 corridor | vehicles per day: 150,000; trucks per day: 17,000; share of franklin county i70 i71 accidents percent: 27vehicles and percent | Current project description accessed August 2026 | Downtown Columbus I-70/I-71 corridor | Conditional relationship | [26] |
| SR-315 southbound ramp to I-70 eastbound closure and detour | closure start: 2024-05-04; duration description: multiple years; detour: SR-315 southbound to I-670 eastbound to I-71 southbound to I-70 eastboundproject condition | Closure beginning May 4, 2024 for multiple years | SR-315 southbound to I-70 eastbound, downtown Columbus | Conditional relationship | [27] |
| Selected active or scheduled sewer capital projects and expected completion windows | lower olentangy tunnel: construction start: 2021-01-01, expected completion: 2026-09-30, tunnel length feet: 17,000; central college subtrunk: expected start: 2026-03-01, duration years: 3; walhalla ravine: expected start: 2026-04-01, expected completion: 2027-08-31; scioto main north: expected start: 2027-02-01, expected completion: 2028-08-31project schedule | Active and scheduled projects listed through 2029 | Selected Columbus sewer and stream project corridors | Conditional relationship | [28] |
| Types of property changes that may require historic or design review | boards commissions panels: 11; potential review triggers: exterior alterations, change of use, rezoning or variance, signs or graphics, landscaping, demolition, new construction, lot combinationsreview framework | Current review framework accessed August 2026 | Historic districts, design review districts, and panel areas within Columbus | Conditional relationship | [29] [35] |
| Certificate of Appropriateness requirement for exterior alterations | yesrequirement | Current commission process accessed August 2026 | German Village Historic District, Columbus | Conditional relationship | [30] [5] |
| Downtown parcels combined into a district where most uses are permitted pending design review | 4,000parcels minimum | Current commission framework accessed August 2026 | Downtown District, Columbus | Conditional relationship | [31] |
| Tax parcels within the University Impact District | 2,310tax parcels | Current board framework accessed August 2026 | University Impact District, Columbus | Conditional relationship | [32] |
| Selected contractor qualification and registration requirements for work in Columbus | all covered contractors require city license or registration: yes; general contractor bond usd: 25,000; home improvement limited experience years: 1; state trade license required for electrical hvac refrigeration hydronics plumbing: yes; sewer water contractor dpu approval required: yesrequirements | Current requirements accessed August 2026 | City of Columbus | Context only | [34] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects that apply without an unresolved site, territory, customer, or project gate.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 72.43 after target-market demand +2.2 pts, referral ecosystem +0.5 pts, and labor and staffing friction -0.2 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Franchise-to-city operating-fit scoring modelInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Valid city JSON exampleInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3United States Structural Inefficiency and CRE Arbitrage AuditInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4Jurisdictional Friction and Structural Capital Constraints: A Forensic Audit of Municipal Operating EnvironmentsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 5Franchise data - Riverside through CharlotteInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Certificate of Appropriateness requirement for exterior alterations
- 6Compiler-ready city research JSON instructionsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 7QuickFacts: Columbus city, Ohio
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households during the 2020-2024 QuickFacts reference period, and Owner-occupied housing unit rate
- 8Columbus, OH profile data
Used for: Estimated housing units in 2024
- 92026 State of the City
Used for: New homes authorized during 2025 and Change in new homes authorized from 2024 to 2025
- 10Columbus city demographics and population
Used for: Housing units reported as built from 1990 through 2009
- 11Healthy Children and Safe Homes by 2040
Used for: Housing units classified as high risk in three initial lead-remediation target communities
- 12Water Hardness
Used for: Average treated municipal water hardness
- 13Obtaining Sanitary Sewer Service
Used for: Current sanitary sewer charges for a 2-inch connection
- 142026 Rates
Used for: Approved utility rate increases effective January 1, 2026
- 15Occupational Employment and Wages in Columbus, OH — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wages for operating-relevant major occupational groups
- 16Columbus, OH Economy at a Glance
Used for: Preliminary unemployment rate in June 2026, Mining, logging, and construction employment and year-over-year change in June 2026, Government employment in June 2026, and Education and health services employment in June 2026
- 17Campus Activations & Sponsorships at The Ohio State University
Used for: Students on The Ohio State University Columbus campus and Residence-hall population and daily meals at two primary campus dining facilities
- 18Fast Facts 2025
Used for: Nationwide Children's Hospital total employees and Nationwide Children's Columbus licensed beds and Columbus-specific annual outpatient activity components
- 19Vendor Resources
Used for: City procurement requires vendor profile management, W-9, registration, compliance, and electronic bid information
- 20Purchasing Office
Used for: Responsible wage applicable to City service contracts executed, modified, or renewed starting January 1, 2027
- 21Contract Compliance Registration
Used for: City procurement requires vendor profile management, W-9, registration, compliance, and electronic bid information
- 22Columbus Office Figures Q2 2026
Used for: Columbus office market conditions in Q2 2026
- 23Columbus Industrial Figures Q2 2026
Used for: Columbus industrial market conditions in Q2 2026
- 24Columbus Retail Market Report Q1 2026
Used for: Columbus retail market conditions in Q1 2026
- 25Columbus Industrial Market Report Q1 2026
Used for: Industrial size-band evidence emphasized constraints in large modern bulk space rather than service-size small bays
- 26I-70 and I-71 Project
Used for: Daily traffic and truck volume on the downtown I-70/I-71 corridor
- 27Downtown Ramp Up: Upcoming Long Term Ramp Closure
Used for: SR-315 southbound ramp to I-70 eastbound closure and detour
- 28Neighborhood Sewer Capital Improvement Projects
Used for: Selected active or scheduled sewer capital projects and expected completion windows
- 29Historic Preservation & Design Review: Boards, Commissions, & Panels
Used for: Types of property changes that may require historic or design review
- 30German Village Commission
Used for: Certificate of Appropriateness requirement for exterior alterations
- 31Downtown Commission
Used for: Downtown parcels combined into a district where most uses are permitted pending design review
- 32University Impact District Review Board
Used for: Tax parcels within the University Impact District
- 33
- 34Contractor Licenses
Used for: Selected contractor qualification and registration requirements for work in Columbus
- 35Commercial Zoning Clearance
Used for: Types of property changes that may require historic or design review
Before contacting a franchisor
Complete the next layer of due diligence
- Confirm the exact protected territory and neighboring units.
- Review the current Franchise Disclosure Document.
- Validate local staffing, licensing, insurance, and service-base assumptions.
- Obtain location, vehicle, buildout, or working-capital estimates.
- Speak with current and former franchisees.
- Build a candidate-specific financial scenario.
Apply the analysis to your situation
Review how these market findings apply to your budget, role, and proposed territory.
The city score does not include your experience, capital structure, time commitment, financing, or exact territory.
Disclaimer and broker disclosure: This analysis is informational and does not constitute financial, legal, accounting, or investment advice. Market-alignment scores do not predict financial performance or business success. Offers are made only through the delivery of a Franchise Disclosure Document. We may receive referral compensation from participating franchisors; compensation is not an input to the scoring model.