70.2 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in El Paso, Texas
We compared 14 franchise concepts for El Paso, Texas. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism.
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
20Sources used
15Primary sources
32Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
0.9 points average among 11 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 12 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for El Paso, Texas
City Wide, ActionCOACH, and Jan-Pro International produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Local business demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 10 exposed concepts, adding 0.7 points on average. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 72.7Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.3 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 72.0Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +1.5 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.9 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 71.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.7 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.1 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in El Paso, Texas
Large resident, household, employment, retail and establishment base supports broad local-account demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 0.7 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Estimated households, 2020-2024: 245,346 households. [4] [6]
The metro had 71,900 government jobs in June 2026 and UTEP enrolled 26,297 students in Fall 2025.
The institutional base supports account and referral opportunities for concepts that sell to institutions or their professional ecosystems. It should not be converted into a citywide walk-in or lunch-traffic assumption without trade-area and daypart evidence. [6] [9] [10]
asset-light-b2b
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was target-market demand, while the main constraint was property replacement-cycle demand. [6] [7] [4] [15] [10] [9]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large resident, household, employment, retail and establishment base supports broad local-account demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
A material 1990-2009 housing cohort is now in a midlife repair and system-replacement window1 modeled effect
Housing-system replacement demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Large government employment and a major public university create an institutional account and referral base3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Government employment in June 2026, preliminary and not seasonally adjusted: 71,900 jobs [6]
- UTEP official Fall 2025 enrollment: 26,297 students [9]
- Fort Bliss cantonment area is within El Paso city limits: yes boolean [10]
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Institutional professional relationship baseReferral ecosystem
Active I-10, Loop 375, Montana and related projects create route-specific access disruption through portions of late 20261 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, 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 alignment72.7
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +2.3 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 | +2.3 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.67 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.67 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.7 |
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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#3
#2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
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 |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.05 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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.05 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#4
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.9
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.9 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.9 pts | |
| Net local movement | +1.89 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.89 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#14
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.8
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +1.7 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 | +1.7 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.84 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 | +1.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | +0.1 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.84 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#10
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.1 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: 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 | |
| Net local movement | +1.06 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| 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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#11
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.67 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.67 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#7
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.61 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.61 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#7
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.53 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 | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.53 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#8
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.27 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
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 | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.27 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#12
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.26 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.26 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#10
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.20 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 | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.20 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#11
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.2 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 |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.18 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.18 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.10 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.10 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#13
#14Tier 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: Stable
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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| 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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #13–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.67 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectPositive local support
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 11 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #3 to #13, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted11 of 14
Average among affected+0.9 pts
Average across all concepts+0.7 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Resident Population Estimate On July 1, 2025683,012 people
- Estimated Households, 2020 2024245,346 households
- Total Retail Sales In 202212,694,132,000 usd
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+2.3 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.9 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+1.7 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+1.5 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.1 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, 7 concepts changed position. Mister Sparky Electric moved from #9 to #12, 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 rank7
What we observed
- Owner Occupied Housing Unit Rate, 2020 202460.8 percent
- Total Housing Units In The 2024 Acs 1 Year Estimate267,769 housing units
- Housing Units Built 1990 To 1999 In The 2024 Acs 1 Year Estimate33,212 housing units
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.4 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.3 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.3 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.3 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.1 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, 3 concepts changed position. ActionCOACH moved from #2 to #4, 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 rank3
Concepts helped most
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.6 pts
City WideFacility management
+0.4 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.1 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Labor and staffing frictionNo 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 WideModerately sensitive · tested #1–#3
#2 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #1–#4
#3 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#14
#4 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #3–#10
#5 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #5–#11
#6 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #2–#7
#7 ZOOM DRAINModerately sensitive · tested #4–#7
#8 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #5–#8
#9 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #6–#12
#10 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsModerately sensitive · tested #7–#10
#11 Rainbow International RestorationModerately sensitive · tested #9–#11
#12 Tiger AdjustersModerately sensitive · tested #9–#12
#13 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13
#14 Workout AnytimeStable · tested #13–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Score-changing factors
Factors that changed the calculated scores
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [6] [7] [9] [10] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [4] [1]Competitive environment: [4] [7] [6] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [6] [7] [8] [2] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [13] [14] [4] [3] [1]Real estate and site feasibility: [11] [12] [17] [18] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [6] [15] [16] [4] [7]Referral ecosystem: [6] [9] [10] [15] [16]Territory quality: [17] [18] [13] [14] [3] [10]Regulatory and operating friction: [17] [18] [19] [20] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +2.3 pts | — | +0.4 pts |
| #2 ActionCOACH | +1.5 pts | — | +0.6 pts |
| #3 Jan-Pro International | +1.9 pts | — | — |
| #4 FASTSIGNS | +1.7 pts | — | +0.1 pts |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +1.1 pts | — | — |
| #6 Aire Serv | +0.2 pts | +0.4 pts | — |
| #7 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.3 pts | +0.3 pts | — |
| #8 Mr. Rooter | +0.2 pts | +0.3 pts | — |
| #9 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.3 pts | — |
| #10 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.1 pts | +0.1 pts | — |
| #11 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.1 pts | +0.1 pts | — |
| #12 Tiger Adjusters | +0.2 pts | — | — |
| #13 PuroClean | — | +0.1 pts | — |
| #14 Workout Anytime | — | — | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, ActionCOACH, Jan-Pro International led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to competitive environment. 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, FASTSIGNS, HomeSmiles; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in El Paso, Texas
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.2Limited comparison: Restoration franchise opportunities assessed in El Paso, Texas
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.1 to 70.2. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.2. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.1 points on average among the affected concepts.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.1-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.1–70.2
- Category average
- 70.2
Rainbow International Restoration70.2
PuroClean70.1
Metric registry
The 32 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 683,012people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic data | El Paso, Texas | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 0.6percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic data | El Paso, Texas | Context only | [4] |
| Estimated households, 2020-2024 | 245,346households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic data | El Paso, Texas | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2020-2024 | 60.8percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic data | El Paso, Texas | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Total retail sales in 2022 | 12,694,132,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic data | El Paso, Texas | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Total housing units in the 2024 ACS 1-year estimate | 267,769housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates | El Paso, Texas | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Housing units built 1990 to 1999 in the 2024 ACS 1-year estimate | 33,212housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates | El Paso, Texas | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Housing units built 2000 to 2009 in the 2024 ACS 1-year estimate | 36,406housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates | El Paso, Texas | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Share of 2024 housing units built from 1990 through 2009 | 26percent of housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates | El Paso, Texas | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Total nonfarm employment in June 2026, preliminary and not seasonally adjusted | 365,100jobs | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and nonfarm-employment data | El Paso, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Government employment in June 2026, preliminary and not seasonally adjusted | 71,900jobs | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and nonfarm-employment data | El Paso, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area | Supports modeled relationship | [6] |
| Professional and business services employment in June 2026, preliminary and not seasonally adjusted | 43,900jobs | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and nonfarm-employment data | El Paso, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [6] |
| Education and health services employment in June 2026, preliminary and not seasonally adjusted | 56,000jobs | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and nonfarm-employment data | El Paso, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [6] |
| Trade, transportation, and utilities employment in June 2026, preliminary and not seasonally adjusted | 80,800jobs | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and nonfarm-employment data | El Paso, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [6] |
| Unemployment rate in June 2026, preliminary and not seasonally adjusted | 4.9percent | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and nonfarm-employment data | El Paso, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [6] |
| Covered establishments in El Paso County in fourth quarter 2025 | 16,700establishments rounded | Fourth quarter 2025 | El Paso County, Texas | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Covered employment in El Paso County in December 2025 | 342,900jobs rounded | Fourth quarter 2025 | El Paso County, Texas | Context only | [7] |
| Average weekly wage in El Paso County in fourth quarter 2025 | 1,020usd per week | Fourth quarter 2025 | El Paso County, Texas | Context only | [7] |
| Mean hourly wage across all occupations in May 2024 | 24.06usd per hour | May 2024 OEWS | El Paso, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [8] |
| Selected overlapping frontline occupational-group mean wages in May 2024 | food preparation and serving: 13.19; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: 14.07usd per hour | May 2024 OEWS | El Paso, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [8] |
| UTEP official Fall 2025 enrollment | 26,297students | Fall 2025 official census enrollment | The University of Texas at El Paso | Supports modeled relationship | [9] |
| Fort Bliss cantonment area is within El Paso city limits | yesboolean | Current installation description accessed August 2026 | Fort Bliss | Supports modeled relationship | [10] |
| El Paso industrial market activity in second quarter 2026 | net absorption sqft: 1,600,000; under construction sqft: 6,600,000; projects under construction: 20; new starts sqft over: 1,900,000; deliveries sqft: 1,500,000; share of leasing and user sale activity above 100k sqft: more than two thirds; vacancy change quarter over quarter basis points: -30; vacancy change year over year basis points: -100mixed industrial metrics | Second quarter 2026 | El Paso industrial market | Supports research conclusion | [11] |
| Comparative national shallow-bay supply context: demand for buildings under 50,000 square feet is outstripping available supply in analyzed major U.S. markets | shallow bay building size sqft under: 50,000; direction: availability tighter than overall industrial in analyzed marketscomparative context | National shallow-bay industrial analysis through 2025 | Major U.S | Context only | [12] |
| West El Paso-area continuous and recurring project closures during summer 2026 | i10 westbound transmountain exit closed through: 2026-08-31; santiago artcraft intersection expected reopen: 2026-08-01; corridors with recurring or continuous work: I-10, SH-178 Artcraft, Loop 375 Border Highway, US-54, BU-54A Dyerstructured closure record | July 2026 closures with some continuous closures through August 2026 or further notice | West and central El Paso-area TxDOT corridors | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| East El Paso-area continuous project closures extending through late 2026 | sargent major exit ramps closed through: 2026-12-31; montana joe battle through lanes closed through: 2026-12-31; montana frontage road reductions through: 2026-12-31; purple heart 375 shoulders: until further noticestructured closure record | July 2026 notices with continuous closures through December 2026 or further notice | East El Paso-area TxDOT corridors | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| City of El Paso was actively issuing 2026 capital-improvement professional-services solicitations at the time of research | examples: 2026-0479R Geotechnical & Material Testing Services for EPIA, 2026-0428R On-Call Professional Services - Traffic Engineering, 2026-0427R On-Call Professional Services - Surveying, 2026-0426R On-Call Professional Services - Construction Managementsolicitation examples | Current solicitations accessed August 2026 | El Paso, Texas | Supports modeled relationship | [15] |
| Example City of El Paso professional-services RFQ schedule from issuance to target council approval | issued: 2026-06-04; submission deadline: 2026-06-29; ranking notification: 2026-07-10; council approval target: 2026-08procurement schedule | June-August 2026 procurement schedule | El Paso, Texas | Context only | [16] |
| P-I Planned Industrial district imposes enclosed-building and screened-storage conditions | all uses completely enclosed: yes; open storage raw in process finished materials supplies or waste: not allowed; open storage finished or semifinished products: allowed if screened; screening wall height feet: min: 6, max: 8; parking in required front yard: not allowed; materials equipment products in required front yard: not allowedcodified requirements | Current codified ordinance text accessed August 2026 | P-I Planned Industrial, City of El Paso | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| City outdoor-storage standards apply to specified vehicles, wheeled units, materials, equipment and merchandise, with surfacing and screening requirements for covered uses | covered categories include: motor vehicles, commercial and noncommercial trucks, trailers, storage containers, equipment, materials, products, merchandise; material equipment storage screening: screen from adjacent properties and public streets under Chapter 20.16 or other Title 20 provisionscodified requirements | Current codified ordinance text accessed August 2026 | El Paso, Texas; applicability depends on use and zoning | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| City Planning & Inspections publishes sign permit, comprehensive sign plan, contractor registration, zoning and development applications | sign permit application: yes; comprehensive sign plan: yes; contractor registration application: yes; zoning and development forms: yesprocess availability | Current forms and permitting resources accessed August 2026 | El Paso, Texas | Context only | [19] |
| El Paso Water Public Service Board approved FY 2026-27 water, wastewater and stormwater budgets on January 14, 2026; the budget notice states stormwater fees will not increase | budget approved: yes; approval date: 2026-01-14; stormwater fee increase: nobudget status | Fiscal year 2026-2027 approved budgets | El Paso Water service area | Context only | [20] |
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 72.67 after target-market demand +2.3 pts and referral ecosystem +0.4 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Reports are checked for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability before publication.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Local evidence supporting this report
The city page keeps the local sources used for its visible findings and metrics. Franchise-source provenance stays with the underlying franchise research rather than being duplicated across every city page.
- 1Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Franchise Opportunities in Tier-1 U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Forensic Audit of Municipal Structural Constraints: Cross-Jurisdictional Barrier AnalysisInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - Combine2 (El Paso rows)Internal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4QuickFacts: El Paso city, Texas
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Estimated households, 2020-2024, Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2020-2024, and Total retail sales in 2022
- 5B25034: Year Structure Built, 2024 ACS 1-Year Estimates
Used for: Total housing units in the 2024 ACS 1-year estimate, Housing units built 1990 to 1999 in the 2024 ACS 1-year estimate, Housing units built 2000 to 2009 in the 2024 ACS 1-year estimate, and Share of 2024 housing units built from 1990 through 2009
- 6El Paso, TX Economy at a Glance and Metropolitan Area Data
Used for: Total nonfarm employment in June 2026, preliminary and not seasonally adjusted, Government employment in June 2026, preliminary and not seasonally adjusted, Professional and business services employment in June 2026, preliminary and not seasonally adjusted, Education and health services employment in June 2026, preliminary and not seasonally adjusted, and Trade, transportation, and utilities employment in June 2026, preliminary and not seasonally adjusted
- 7County Employment and Wages in Texas — Fourth Quarter 2025
Used for: Covered establishments in El Paso County in fourth quarter 2025, Covered employment in El Paso County in December 2025, and Average weekly wage in El Paso County in fourth quarter 2025
- 8Occupational Employment and Wages in El Paso — May 2024
Used for: Mean hourly wage across all occupations in May 2024 and Selected overlapping frontline occupational-group mean wages in May 2024
- 9UTEP Enrollment Surpasses 26,000 for First Time in History
Used for: UTEP official Fall 2025 enrollment
- 10My Fort Bliss
Used for: Fort Bliss cantonment area is within El Paso city limits
- 11El Paso Industrial Figures Q2 2026
Used for: El Paso industrial market activity in second quarter 2026
- 12Shallow-Bay Industrial Availability Remains Tight Amid Strong Demand
Used for: Comparative national shallow-bay supply context: demand for buildings under 50,000 square feet is outstripping available supply in analyzed major U.S. markets
- 13El Paso District west area project, maintenance closures
Used for: West El Paso-area continuous and recurring project closures during summer 2026
- 14El Paso District east area project, maintenance closures
Used for: East El Paso-area continuous project closures extending through late 2026
- 15Capital Improvement — Solicitations
Used for: City of El Paso was actively issuing 2026 capital-improvement professional-services solicitations at the time of research
- 16Request for Statements of Qualifications 2026-0427R — On-Call Professional Services, Surveying
Used for: Example City of El Paso professional-services RFQ schedule from issuance to target council approval
- 17El Paso Code of Ordinances, Title 20 — Planned Industrial (P-I) supplemental regulations
Used for: P-I Planned Industrial district imposes enclosed-building and screened-storage conditions
- 18El Paso Code of Ordinances, Chapter 20.14 — Off-Street Parking, Loading and Storage Standards
Used for: City outdoor-storage standards apply to specified vehicles, wheeled units, materials, equipment and merchandise, with surfacing and screening requirements for covered uses
- 19Planning & Inspections — Forms & Docs
Used for: City Planning & Inspections publishes sign permit, comprehensive sign plan, contractor registration, zoning and development applications
- 20FY 2026-27 EPWater Budget Process
Used for: El Paso Water Public Service Board approved FY 2026-27 water, wastewater and stormwater budgets on January 14, 2026; the budget notice states stormwater fees will not increase
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.