70.6 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Tulsa, Oklahoma
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Tulsa, Oklahoma. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Legacy-system service complexity was a leading operating constraint.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
25Sources used
16Primary sources
21Local 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
0.5 points average among 11 affected concepts
0.3 points average reduction among 7 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 7 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Tulsa, Oklahoma
City Wide, ActionCOACH, and FASTSIGNS 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 0.6 points on average. One important asymmetry was that the same local condition supported replacement and repair demand while also creating legacy-system service complexity. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 71.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 71.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 71.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 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 | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Tulsa, Oklahoma
Large resident, employment, and commercial-activity base supports broad local-account demand without proving walk-in density
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 0.6 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Estimated households and persons per household: households: 172,909; persons per household: 2.34 households and persons. [4]
Large pre-1980 housing cohort supports ongoing repair and replacement demand while increasing legacy-system service complexity
The same local condition created complementary effects: replacement and repair demand supported exposed concepts while legacy-system service complexity constrained others. [5] [1]
old_building_demand_and_complexity
Older stock increases the probability of recurring maintenance, system replacement, inspection, and rehabilitation work, while also increasing the likelihood that service technicians encounter legacy configurations. Housing age does not establish that all systems are original or failing simultaneously. [5]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large resident, employment, and commercial-activity base supports broad local-account demand without proving walk-in density1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Housing-cost burden constrains discretionary spending for a material subset of Tulsa households1 modeled effect
Discretionary-spending pressureTarget-market demand
Large pre-1980 housing cohort supports ongoing repair and replacement demand while increasing legacy-system service complexity2 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Combined pre-1980 share of owner- and renter-occupied units in the cited housing table: pre 1980 units: 107,900; total units in tenure tables: 163,364; share percent: 66.05 units and percent [5]
- Owner- and renter-occupied housing units built before 1980: owner occupied pre 1980 units: 58,700; owner occupied pre 1980 share percent: 70; renter occupied pre 1980 units: 49,200; renter occupied pre 1980 share percent: 62 units and percent [5] [1]
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Legacy-system service complexityLabor and staffing friction
Active I-44 and US-75 construction creates route-dependent travel-time and access disruption through 2027-20281 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Large professional, health, government, and municipal-procurement base creates structured B2B and institutional referral nodes1 modeled effect
Professional and institutional relationship densityReferral ecosystem
Route 66 Overlay creates site- and sign-design-specific prototype adaptation requirements and incentives1 modeled effect
Signage and prototype adaptation burdenRegulatory and operating friction
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 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.8
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.1 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.1 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.81 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 | +1.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 71.81 |
| 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
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#1
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.5
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
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 |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 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 | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | 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 | 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#4
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.3
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +1.0 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 |
| +1.0 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Signage and prototype adaptation burden EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.33 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
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 | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.33 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#7
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.2
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.0 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 |
| +1.0 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.17 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
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 | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.2 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.17 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.2 |
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
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#8
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.6 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| 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
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 | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | 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 | +0.5 |
| 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 | 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#5
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.5 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.66 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 | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| 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 | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.66 |
| 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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#8
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.2 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 |
| +0.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.63 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 | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.63 |
| 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
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#9
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.2 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 |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.63 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 | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.63 |
| 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
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#10
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.2 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 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 | +0.24 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| 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 | 70.24 |
| 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
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#12
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.21 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| 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 | 70.21 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#12
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.5 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 |
| -0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.17 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| 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 | 70.17 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#13
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.1 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 |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.14 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | 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 | 70.14 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.5 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 |
| -0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.07 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| 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 | 69.93 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.2 pts Target-market demand
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 | -0.19 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 69.81 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand -0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #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 | +1.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 71.81 |
| 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.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 11 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 8 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #3 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted11 of 14
Average among affected+0.5 pts
Average across all concepts+0.4 pts
Concepts changing rank8
What we observed
- Resident Population Estimate On July 1, 2025416,209 people
- Estimated Households And Persons Per Householdhouseholds: 172,909; persons per household: 2.34 households and persons
- Selected City Economic Activity Measures From 2022retail sales thousand usd: 9,895,976; retail sales per capita usd: 24,034; health care and social assistance receipts thousand usd: 7,723,986; transportation and warehousing receipts thousand usd: 6,457,338; accommodation and food services sales thousand usd: 1,919,186 usd and thousand usd
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.1 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+1.0 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.0 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.9 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.6 pts
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.2 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 9 concepts changed position. Mr. Rooter moved from #10 to #13, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank9
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.5 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.5 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.5 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.4 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.4 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 8 concepts changed position. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors moved from #9 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected-0.3 pts
Average across all concepts-0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank8
Concepts challenged most
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-0.5 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.5 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.5 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.4 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.2 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Referral ecosystem
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. Rainbow International Restoration moved from #7 to #10, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank7
What we observed
- Selected City Economic Activity Measures From 2022retail sales thousand usd: 9,895,976; retail sales per capita usd: 24,034; health care and social assistance receipts thousand usd: 7,723,986; transportation and warehousing receipts thousand usd: 6,457,338; accommodation and food services sales thousand usd: 1,919,186 usd and thousand usd
- Selected Tulsa Metropolitan Industry Employment In June 2026professional and business services thousand jobs: 63.5; education and health services thousand jobs: 84.1; government thousand jobs: 63.4; trade transportation utilities thousand jobs: 86.8; construction thousand jobs: 30.7; manufacturing thousand jobs: 53.3
- City Of Tulsa Vendor Registration And Competitive Purchase Thresholdsvendor registration required: yes; under 2500 process: Purchasing card may be used; 2500 to 24999 process: Informal competitive process; at least four quotes; 25000 and above process: Formal competitive process; vendor notification method: Registered vendors may be notified based on selected NIGP commodity codes procurement rules
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.7 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.6 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.5 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.4 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- 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–#1
#2 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #2–#4
#3 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #2–#7
#4 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #3–#8
#5 HomeSmilesStable · tested #5–#5
#6 ZOOM DRAINModerately sensitive · tested #6–#8
#7 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #2–#9
#8 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #3–#10
#9 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #7–#12
#10 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #8–#12
#11 Aire ServModerately sensitive · tested #10–#13
#12 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #9–#13
#13 Mister Sparky ElectricModerately sensitive · tested #11–#14
#14 Workout AnytimeModerately 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: [4] [5] [6] [7] [17] [20] [21] [22] [1] [2] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [1] [23] [24]Competitive environment: [4] [7] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [7] [8] [5] [2] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [9] [10] [11] [12] [4] [2] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [16] [17] [25] [13] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [4] [7] [18] [19] [3]Referral ecosystem: [7] [4] [18] [19] [3]Territory quality: [4] [16] [17] [9] [12] [15] [23] [24] [1] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [15] [13] [14] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +1.1 pts | — | — | +0.7 pts |
| #2 ActionCOACH | +0.9 pts | — | — | +0.6 pts |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +1.0 pts | — | — | +0.3 pts |
| #4 Jan-Pro International | +1.0 pts | — | — | +0.2 pts |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +0.6 pts | — | — | +0.5 pts |
| #6 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.2 pts | +0.5 pts | -0.4 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #7 Rainbow International Restoration | — | +0.4 pts | -0.2 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #8 PuroClean | — | +0.4 pts | -0.2 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #9 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.1 pts | +0.2 pts | -0.1 pts | — |
| #10 Mr. Rooter | +0.2 pts | +0.5 pts | -0.5 pts | — |
| #11 Aire Serv | +0.2 pts | +0.5 pts | -0.5 pts | — |
| #12 Tiger Adjusters | +0.1 pts | — | — | — |
| #13 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.4 pts | -0.5 pts | — |
| #14 Workout Anytime | -0.2 pts | — | — | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, ActionCOACH, FASTSIGNS 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 FASTSIGNS, Jan-Pro International, Rainbow International Restoration; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Tulsa, Oklahoma
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.6Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Tulsa, Oklahoma
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.6 to 70.6. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.6. Referral ecosystem added 0.5 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.2 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.0-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.6–70.6
- Category average
- 70.6
Rainbow International Restoration70.6
PuroClean70.6
Metric registry
The 21 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 | 416,209people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic and income estimates; 2022 economic data | Tulsa, Oklahoma | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 0.8percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic and income estimates; 2022 economic data | Tulsa, Oklahoma | Context only | [4] |
| Estimated households and persons per household | households: 172,909; persons per household: 2.34households and persons | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic and income estimates; 2022 economic data | Tulsa, Oklahoma | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Selected city economic activity measures from 2022 | retail sales thousand usd: 9,895,976; retail sales per capita usd: 24,034; health care and social assistance receipts thousand usd: 7,723,986; transportation and warehousing receipts thousand usd: 6,457,338; accommodation and food services sales thousand usd: 1,919,186usd and thousand usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic and income estimates; 2022 economic data | Tulsa, Oklahoma | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Median household income, poverty rate, and median gross rent | median household income usd: 59,838; poverty rate percent: 18.7; median gross rent usd: 1,052usd and percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic and income estimates; 2022 economic data | Tulsa, Oklahoma | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Mean travel time to work for workers age 16 and older | 18.9minutes | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic and income estimates; 2022 economic data | Tulsa, Oklahoma | Context only | [4] |
| Tulsa metropolitan nonfarm employment in June 2026 | total nonfarm thousand jobs: 484; year over year change percent: -0.2thousand jobs and percent | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and payroll employment data extracted August 7, 2026 | Tulsa, Oklahoma metropolitan statistical area | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Selected Tulsa metropolitan industry employment in June 2026 | professional and business services thousand jobs: 63.5; education and health services thousand jobs: 84.1; government thousand jobs: 63.4; trade transportation utilities thousand jobs: 86.8; construction thousand jobs: 30.7; manufacturing thousand jobs: 53.3thousand jobs | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and payroll employment data extracted August 7, 2026 | Tulsa, Oklahoma metropolitan statistical area | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Tulsa metropolitan unemployment rate in June 2026 | 4.5percent | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and payroll employment data extracted August 7, 2026 | Tulsa, Oklahoma metropolitan statistical area | Context only | [7] |
| Selected Tulsa metropolitan major occupational-group mean hourly wages compared with the United States | all occupations: tulsa usd per hour: 27.52, us usd per hour: 32.66; food preparation and serving: tulsa usd per hour: 14.26, us usd per hour: 17.32; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: tulsa usd per hour: 16.26, us usd per hour: 19.01; sales and related: tulsa usd per hour: 22.42, us usd per hour: 26; office and administrative support: tulsa usd per hour: 21.73, us usd per hour: 24.12; installation maintenance and repair: tulsa usd per hour: 30.28, us usd per hour: 29.63; production: tulsa usd per hour: 24.19, us usd per hour: 24.08usd per hour | May 2024 | Tulsa, Oklahoma metropolitan statistical area | Context only | [8] |
| Owner- and renter-occupied housing units built before 1980 | owner occupied pre 1980 units: 58,700; owner occupied pre 1980 share percent: 70; renter occupied pre 1980 units: 49,200; renter occupied pre 1980 share percent: 62units and percent | Primarily 2016-2020 CHAS/ACS housing data, with 2018-2022 ACS mapping and current 2025-2029 planning context | Tulsa, Oklahoma | Supports modeled relationship | [5] [1] |
| Combined pre-1980 share of owner- and renter-occupied units in the cited housing table | pre 1980 units: 107,900; total units in tenure tables: 163,364; share percent: 66.05units and percent | Primarily 2016-2020 CHAS/ACS housing data, with 2018-2022 ACS mapping and current 2025-2029 planning context | Tulsa, Oklahoma | Supports modeled relationship | [5] |
| City households by housing-cost-burden band in the current consolidated plan | households 30 to 50 percent income: 26,300; share 30 to 50 percent income percent: 16; households over 50 percent income: 23,615; share over 50 percent income percent: 14.4; combined share at least 30 percent income percent: 30.4households and percent | Primarily 2016-2020 CHAS/ACS housing data, with 2018-2022 ACS mapping and current 2025-2029 planning context | Tulsa, Oklahoma | Used in scoring | [5] [6] |
| I-44 and US-75 interchange reconfiguration is an active multi-year construction project | project cost million usd: 252; construction start: 2025-04-07; anticipated completion: summer 2028; bridges in project area: 17; typical vehicles per day: 150,000; typical trucks per day: 21,000; major scope: widen US-75 from 71st Street to 41st Street, replace US-75 interchange at 61st Street, new frontage road between 61st Street and Skelly Drive, extend and connect 51st Street under US-75project metrics | Construction beginning April 7, 2025 with anticipated completion in summer 2028 | I-44 / US-75 interchange and adjacent Tulsa roadway network | Conditional relationship | [9] [10] [11] [2] |
| US-75 bridge replacement and diverging-diamond project at 81st Street is active | project cost million usd approximate: 27; construction start: 2026-06-01; expected completion: end of 2027; peak period lanes maintained each direction: 2; scope: replace northbound and southbound US-75 bridges over 81st Street, widen 81st Street below the highway, convert interchange to a diverging diamondproject metrics | Construction beginning June 2026 with completion expected by the end of 2027 | US-75 at 81st Street, Tulsa | Conditional relationship | [12] |
| Tulsa industrial market vacancy, rent, and submarket variation in Q2 2026 | inventory sqft: 84,827,497; overall vacancy rate percent: 2.1; overall asking rent usd psf nnn: 7.73; flex asking rent usd psf nnn: 9.33; q2 net absorption sqft: 1,626,770; ytd net absorption sqft: 631,912; submarket vacancy rate min percent: 0; submarket vacancy rate max percent: 7.1sqft percent and usd psf | Q2 2026 | Tulsa industrial market; broker-defined submarkets may extend beyond Tulsa city limits | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| Tulsa office market vacancy, rent, and submarket variation in Q2 2026 | inventory sqft: 49,943,377; overall vacancy rate percent: 9.9; overall asking rent usd psf full service: 19.65; cbd vacancy rate percent: 9.3; cbd asking rent usd psf full service: 22.23; submarket vacancy rate min percent: 0; submarket vacancy rate max percent: 24.3sqft percent and usd psf | Q2 2026 | Tulsa office market; broker-defined submarkets may extend beyond Tulsa city limits | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| Current Route 66 Overlay sign provisions are limited to qualifying signs and retain underlying zoning | overlay: RT66 Route 66 Overlay; qualifying new signage neon minimum percent of sign face: 25; dynamic display treatment: Dynamic displays are not permitted to utilize the provisions of the Route 66 Overlay; underlying zoning treatment: Underlying base-zoning sign regulations continue to apply unless expressly modified by the overlay; selected overlay incentives: freestanding or projecting sign area increase max percent: 50, wall sign area increase max percent: 25legal rule | Current zoning code accessed August 2026; Route 66 provisions reflect amendments through at least May 22, 2024 | Route 66 Overlay District, Tulsa | Conditional relationship | [15] [2] [3] |
| Current Tulsa Planning fee for accelerated building-permit release and 2025 fee restructuring | authorization for accelerated release building permit usd: 700; fee structure effective date: 2025-01-14; prior variable fee types: 68; current flat fee types: 34usd and count | Current fee schedule accessed August 2026 | City of Tulsa planning applications | Context only | [13] [14] [2] |
| City of Tulsa vendor registration and competitive-purchase thresholds | vendor registration required: yes; under 2500 process: Purchasing card may be used; 2500 to 24999 process: Informal competitive process; at least four quotes; 25000 and above process: Formal competitive process; vendor notification method: Registered vendors may be notified based on selected NIGP commodity codesprocurement rules | Current vendor-registration process accessed August 2026 | City of Tulsa | Used in scoring | [18] [19] |
| Tulsa Community College preliminary headcount declines from spring to summer 2026 | spring 2026 unduplicated headcount: 15,311; summer 2026 unduplicated headcount: 7,167; absolute change: -8,144; percent change: -53.19students and percent | Spring 2026 preliminary enrollment after add/drop | Tulsa Community College system, including multiple campuses and off-campus/concurrent enrollment | Context only | [21] [22] [20] [2] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects 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 71.81 after target-market demand +1.1 pts and referral ecosystem +0.7 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Structural Inefficiencies and Utility Delta Audit: A Private Equity Real Estate AnalysisInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Owner- and renter-occupied housing units built before 1980
- 2Forensic Municipal Constraint and Structural Friction ReportInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: I-44 and US-75 interchange reconfiguration is an active multi-year construction project, Current Route 66 Overlay sign provisions are limited to qualifying signs and retain underlying zoning, Current Tulsa Planning fee for accelerated building-permit release and 2025 fee restructuring, and Tulsa Community College preliminary headcount declines from spring to summer 2026
- 3Franchise data - remake - B startInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Current Route 66 Overlay sign provisions are limited to qualifying signs and retain underlying zoning
- 4QuickFacts: Tulsa city, Oklahoma
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Estimated households and persons per household, Selected city economic activity measures from 2022, and Median household income, poverty rate, and median gross rent
- 52025-2029 Consolidated Plan and First Year Annual Action Plan
Used for: Owner- and renter-occupied housing units built before 1980, Combined pre-1980 share of owner- and renter-occupied units in the cited housing table, and City households by housing-cost-burden band in the current consolidated plan
- 6Second Year Annual Action Plan for 2026-2027 Draft
Used for: City households by housing-cost-burden band in the current consolidated plan
- 7Tulsa, OK Economy at a Glance
Used for: Tulsa metropolitan nonfarm employment in June 2026, Selected Tulsa metropolitan industry employment in June 2026, and Tulsa metropolitan unemployment rate in June 2026
- 8Occupational Employment and Wages in Tulsa — May 2024
Used for: Selected Tulsa metropolitan major occupational-group mean hourly wages compared with the United States
- 9Setting the sun on Traffic Henge: Work begins April 7 on I-44/US-75 interchange
Used for: I-44 and US-75 interchange reconfiguration is an active multi-year construction project
- 10Sen. Lankford, City of Tulsa and ODOT break ground on $252 million Tulsa Stonehenge project
Used for: I-44 and US-75 interchange reconfiguration is an active multi-year construction project
- 11Major Projects
Used for: I-44 and US-75 interchange reconfiguration is an active multi-year construction project
- 12US-75 bridge replacement project at 81st St. begins Monday
Used for: US-75 bridge replacement and diverging-diamond project at 81st Street is active
- 13Applications & Fees
Used for: Current Tulsa Planning fee for accelerated building-permit release and 2025 fee restructuring
- 14New Application Fees To Take Effect January 14, 2025
Used for: Current Tulsa Planning fee for accelerated building-permit release and 2025 fee restructuring
- 15Tulsa Zoning Code, Chapter 20 Overlay Districts, Section 20.070 RT66 Route 66 Overlay
Used for: Current Route 66 Overlay sign provisions are limited to qualifying signs and retain underlying zoning
- 16Tulsa Industrial MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Tulsa industrial market vacancy, rent, and submarket variation in Q2 2026
- 17Tulsa Office MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Tulsa office market vacancy, rent, and submarket variation in Q2 2026
- 18Register as a Vendor
Used for: City of Tulsa vendor registration and competitive-purchase thresholds
- 19Vendor FAQs
Used for: City of Tulsa vendor registration and competitive-purchase thresholds
- 20Institutional Research, Reporting & Analytics
Used for: Tulsa Community College preliminary headcount declines from spring to summer 2026
- 21Preliminary Enrollment Report - Spring 2026
Used for: Tulsa Community College preliminary headcount declines from spring to summer 2026
- 22Preliminary Enrollment Report - Summer 2026
Used for: Tulsa Community College preliminary headcount declines from spring to summer 2026
- 23
- 24
- 25
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.