68.5 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Colorado Springs, Colorado
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Colorado Springs, Colorado. University and government account demand was a leading positive mechanism. Service-base space scarcity was a leading operating constraint.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
26Sources used
20Primary sources
26Local 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
0.7 points average among 6 affected concepts
1.1 points average reduction among 8 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 9 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Colorado Springs, Colorado
Jan-Pro International, City Wide, and ActionCOACH produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. University and government account demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 6 exposed concepts, adding 0.7 points on average. Service-base space scarcity was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 1.1 points on average. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing university and government account demand moved it from #2 to #5 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.7 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 69.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 69.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.8 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 69.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 69.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.6 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 68.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.9 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 68.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.3 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Colorado Springs, Colorado
Large federal military installations create material institutional account demand in the Colorado Springs market
This relationship affected 6 concepts and added 0.7 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Fort Carson personnel, population, off-post residence, and local contracting scale: active duty military: 23,716; family members: 57,220; reserve component military: 1,832; civilians: 5,412; contractors: 1,450; total fort carson population: 89,630; soldiers and families living off post percent: 82; local purchases and contracts usd: 106,000,000; additional values omitted mixed. [8] [9]
Small-bay industrial space of 15,000 square feet and below faces constrained supply despite broader industrial availability
This relationship affected 8 concepts and reduced 1.1 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Q2 2026 Colorado Springs commercial vacancy and asking lease rates: industrial: vacancy percent: 6.2, asking rate usd per sqft: 11.39; retail: vacancy percent: 5.02, asking rate usd per sqft: 21.5; office: vacancy percent: 12, asking rate usd per sqft: 23.66; multifamily: vacancy percent: 10.5, asking rate usd per sqft: 1.77 mixed. [14] [13]
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 labor and staffing friction. [7] [6] [8] [9]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large federal military installations create material institutional account demand in the Colorado Springs market1 modeled effect
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Mapped expansive bedrock and soil create site-specific foundation and inspection demand1 modeled effect
Moisture and foundation service demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Technical occupations are unusually concentrated and several technical/management wage groups price above national averages1 modeled effect
Management and technical labor pressureLabor and staffing friction
Small-bay industrial space of 15,000 square feet and below faces constrained supply despite broader industrial availability1 modeled effect
Service-base space scarcityReal estate and site feasibility
Two active corridor projects create temporary route disruption in specific Colorado Springs travel paths1 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Historic-overlay and sign-permit rules can require site-specific exterior design adaptation1 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 alignment70.9
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.0 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.88 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 | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 70.88 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- 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
- #1–#2
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.7 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.68 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 70.68 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- 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 +1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#5
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.01 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.99 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- 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 -0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#4
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.38 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 69.62 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.6 |
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
- Strong
- 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 -0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#8
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.38 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 69.62 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.6 |
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
- Strong
- 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 -0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#9
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.2
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.8 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.76 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 69.24 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- 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 -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#13
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.2
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.6 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.79 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.6 |
| 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 | 69.21 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- 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 -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#8
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.0
Mister Sparky Electric
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.6 pts Real estate and site feasibility
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -1.00 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | -0.6 |
| 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 | 69.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#11
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.7
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.9 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.9 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -1.30 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | -0.9 |
| 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 | 68.70 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#10
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.6
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.3 pts Real estate and site feasibility
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Moisture and foundation service demand EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -1.40 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.3 |
| 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 | 68.60 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.6 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#11
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.6
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.3 pts Real estate and site feasibility
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.7 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Signage and prototype adaptation burden EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -1.41 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.3 |
| 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 | 68.59 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.6 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#13
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.4
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.3 pts Real estate and site feasibility
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Moisture and foundation service demand EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -1.59 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.3 |
| 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 | 68.41 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.2
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.3 pts Real estate and site feasibility
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -1.75 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | -1.3 |
| 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 | 68.25 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.7
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.2 pts Real estate and site feasibility
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -2.32 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.2 |
| 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 | 67.68 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated Jan-Pro International
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 70.88 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 6 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 9 concepts changed position. City Wide moved from #2 to #5, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted6 of 14
Average among affected+0.7 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank9
What we observed
- Selected Nonfarm Employment Sectors In June 2026total nonfarm thousand: 333.6; government thousand: 55.9; professional and business services thousand: 54.2; education and health services thousand: 53.4; leisure and hospitality thousand: 44.2 thousand jobs
- Fort Carson Personnel, Population, Off Post Residence, And Local Contracting Scaleactive duty military: 23,716; family members: 57,220; reserve component military: 1,832; civilians: 5,412; contractors: 1,450; total fort carson population: 89,630; soldiers and families living off post percent: 82; local purchases and contracts usd: 106,000,000; additional values omitted mixed
- Peterson Space Force Base Personnel And Economic Impact In Fy2025active duty personnel: 4,719; civilian personnel: 3,442; military and civilian personnel: 8,161; dependents: 4,505; total personnel including dependents: 12,666; total expenditures usd: 474,485,000; estimated total economic impact usd: 2,630,874,000 mixed
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.4 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.0 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.7 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.4 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.4 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
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 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #11 to #9, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-0.5 pts
Average across all concepts-0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Selected Nonfarm Employment Sectors In June 2026total nonfarm thousand: 333.6; government thousand: 55.9; professional and business services thousand: 54.2; education and health services thousand: 53.4; leisure and hospitality thousand: 44.2 thousand jobs
- Selected Technical And Management Occupational Shares And Mean Hourly Wages In May 2025management: local share percent: 4.8, us share percent: 7.2, local mean hourly usd: 72.42, us mean hourly usd: 69.84; computer and mathematical: local share percent: 5.4, us share percent: 3.4, local mean hourly usd: 58.63, us mean hourly usd: 57.73; architecture and engineering: local share percent: 2.5, us share percent: 1.7, local mean hourly usd: 54.51, us mean hourly usd: 51.36; business and financial operations: local share percent: 8.4, us share percent: 6.8, local mean hourly usd: 45.6, us mean hourly usd: 45.78; project management specialists: employment: 3,200, location quotient: 1.48, mean hourly usd: 56.5 mixed
Concepts challenged most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-1.1 pts
Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjusting
-0.8 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-0.7 pts
City WideFacility management
-0.7 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
-0.6 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Real estate and site feasibility
We applied site and operating-base constraints only to concepts requiring comparable storefront, production, warehouse, or fleet space.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #11 to #4, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected-1.1 pts
Average across all concepts-0.6 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- First Half 2026 Small Bay Industrial Demand And Supply Constraintadjusted market vacancy percent: 4.4; available inventory sqft approx: 1,700,000; small bay definition sqft max: 15,000; small bay demand: particularly strong; small bay new development: limited; office flex asking rate usd per sqft: 12.47; warehouse asking rate usd per sqft: 12.1 mixed
- Q2 2026 Colorado Springs Commercial Vacancy And Asking Lease Ratesindustrial: vacancy percent: 6.2, asking rate usd per sqft: 11.39; retail: vacancy percent: 5.02, asking rate usd per sqft: 21.5; office: vacancy percent: 12, asking rate usd per sqft: 23.66; multifamily: vacancy percent: 10.5, asking rate usd per sqft: 1.77 mixed
Concepts challenged most
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-1.3 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.3 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-1.3 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.3 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-1.2 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Property replacement-cycle demandNo material score adjustment
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Referral ecosystemNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 Jan-Pro InternationalStable · tested #1–#2
#2 City WideHighly sensitive · tested #1–#5
#3 ActionCOACHStable · tested #3–#4
#4 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #2–#8
#5 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #3–#9
#6 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #4–#13
#7 HomeSmilesModerately sensitive · tested #6–#8
#8 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #7–#11
#9 Mr. RooterStable · tested #9–#10
#10 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #5–#11
#11 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #4–#13
#12 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #7–#13
#13 ZOOM DRAINModerately sensitive · tested #12–#14
#14 Aire ServModerately sensitive · tested #12–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
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] [5] [8] [9] [7] [15] [1] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [10] [11] [12] [5] [4] [1]Competitive environment: [25] [4] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [6] [7] [20] [21] [1] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [16] [17] [4] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [13] [14] [15] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [25] [26] [8] [9] [4]Referral ecosystem: [7] [6] [8] [9] [26] [25]Territory quality: [10] [12] [16] [17] [22] [14] [15] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Labor and staffing friction | Real estate and site feasibility |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 Jan-Pro International | +1.0 pts | -0.1 pts | — |
| #2 City Wide | +1.4 pts | -0.7 pts | — |
| #3 ActionCOACH | +0.4 pts | -0.4 pts | — |
| #4 Workout Anytime | — | -0.4 pts | — |
| #5 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | -0.4 pts | — |
| #6 Tiger Adjusters | — | -0.8 pts | — |
| #7 HomeSmiles | +0.4 pts | -0.6 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #8 Mister Sparky Electric | — | -0.4 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #9 Mr. Rooter | — | -0.4 pts | -0.9 pts |
| #10 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.2 pts | -0.3 pts | -1.3 pts |
| #11 FASTSIGNS | +0.7 pts | -0.7 pts | -1.3 pts |
| #12 PuroClean | — | -0.3 pts | -1.3 pts |
| #13 ZOOM DRAIN | — | -0.5 pts | -1.3 pts |
| #14 Aire Serv | — | -1.1 pts | -1.2 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
Jan-Pro International, City Wide, ActionCOACH led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to real estate and site feasibility. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for City Wide, Workout Anytime, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Colorado Springs, Colorado
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
68.5Limited comparison: Restoration franchise opportunities assessed in Colorado Springs, Colorado
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 68.4 to 68.6. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 68.6. Target-market demand added 0.1 points on average among the affected concepts. Real estate and site feasibility reduced the exposed concepts by 1.3 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.2-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 68.4–68.6
- Category average
- 68.5
Rainbow International Restoration68.6
PuroClean68.4
Metric registry
The 26 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 | 494,743people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-period characteristics; 2022 economic census measures | Colorado Springs, Colorado | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 3.1percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-period characteristics; 2022 economic census measures | Colorado Springs, Colorado | Context only | [4] |
| Households, 2020-2024 ACS period | 202,515households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-period characteristics; 2022 economic census measures | Colorado Springs, Colorado | Context only | [4] |
| Total housing units in 2024 ACS 1-year profile | 218,794housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates and 2020 Decennial Census | Colorado Springs, Colorado | Context only | [5] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2020-2024 | 60.9percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-period characteristics; 2022 economic census measures | Colorado Springs, Colorado | Context only | [4] |
| Veterans, 2020-2024 | 52,224people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-period characteristics; 2022 economic census measures | Colorado Springs, Colorado | Context only | [4] |
| Mean travel time to work, 2020-2024 | 22.7minutes | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-period characteristics; 2022 economic census measures | Colorado Springs, Colorado | Context only | [4] |
| Total retail sales in 2022 | 11,107,727thousand usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-period characteristics; 2022 economic census measures | Colorado Springs, Colorado | Context only | [4] |
| Unemployment rate in June 2026 | 4.1percent | January-June 2026, June preliminary | Colorado Springs, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [7] |
| Selected nonfarm employment sectors in June 2026 | total nonfarm thousand: 333.6; government thousand: 55.9; professional and business services thousand: 54.2; education and health services thousand: 53.4; leisure and hospitality thousand: 44.2thousand jobs | January-June 2026, June preliminary | Colorado Springs, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Selected technical and management occupational shares and mean hourly wages in May 2025 | management: local share percent: 4.8, us share percent: 7.2, local mean hourly usd: 72.42, us mean hourly usd: 69.84; computer and mathematical: local share percent: 5.4, us share percent: 3.4, local mean hourly usd: 58.63, us mean hourly usd: 57.73; architecture and engineering: local share percent: 2.5, us share percent: 1.7, local mean hourly usd: 54.51, us mean hourly usd: 51.36; business and financial operations: local share percent: 8.4, us share percent: 6.8, local mean hourly usd: 45.6, us mean hourly usd: 45.78; project management specialists: employment: 3,200, location quotient: 1.48, mean hourly usd: 56.5mixed | May 2025 | Colorado Springs, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Selected frontline and trade mean hourly wages in May 2025 | food preparation and serving: local usd: 19.63, us usd: 17.86; building and grounds cleaning: local usd: 20.39, us usd: 19.66; sales and related: local usd: 27.53, us usd: 26.43; office and administrative support: local usd: 25.14, us usd: 24.79; construction and extraction: local usd: 29.69, us usd: 31.42; installation maintenance and repair: local usd: 30.93, us usd: 30.44; transportation and material moving: local usd: 23.49, us usd: 23.96usd per hour | May 2025 | Colorado Springs, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [6] |
| Fort Carson personnel, population, off-post residence, and local contracting scale | active duty military: 23,716; family members: 57,220; reserve component military: 1,832; civilians: 5,412; contractors: 1,450; total fort carson population: 89,630; soldiers and families living off post percent: 82; local purchases and contracts usd: 106,000,000; additional values omittedmixed | As of February 2025; economic figures include cited 2023 data and January 2025 ASIP population data | Fort Carson and Colorado Springs/El Paso County market | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Peterson Space Force Base personnel and economic impact in FY2025 | active duty personnel: 4,719; civilian personnel: 3,442; military and civilian personnel: 8,161; dependents: 4,505; total personnel including dependents: 12,666; total expenditures usd: 474,485,000; estimated total economic impact usd: 2,630,874,000mixed | Fiscal year 2025 | Peterson Space Force Base and Colorado Springs region | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Mapped susceptibility to differential heave from expansive, steeply dipping bedrock exists within Colorado Springs | condition: areas susceptible to differential heave in expansive, steeply dipping bedrock; city geologic hazard ordinance reference: yes; site level variation: yes; scope note: The map identifies susceptible areas rather than establishing citywide uniform exposure.categorical | Mapped geologic condition; ordinance discussion references 1996 adoption | Colorado Springs, Colorado | Conditional relationship | [10] [12] |
| Expansive clay can swell with moisture and damage foundations and other improvements | Colorado Geological Survey identifies expansive or swelling soil as a major Colorado geologic hazard and describes bentonite and montmorillonite clays as capable of causing structural property damage.text | Structural geologic hazard guidance | Colorado; applied only where Colorado Springs mapping identifies susceptible conditions | Conditional relationship | [11] [10] |
| First-half 2026 small-bay industrial demand and supply constraint | adjusted market vacancy percent: 4.4; available inventory sqft approx: 1,700,000; small bay definition sqft max: 15,000; small bay demand: particularly strong; small bay new development: limited; office flex asking rate usd per sqft: 12.47; warehouse asking rate usd per sqft: 12.1mixed | First half of 2026 | Colorado Springs industrial market | Used in scoring | [13] |
| Q2 2026 Colorado Springs commercial vacancy and asking lease rates | industrial: vacancy percent: 6.2, asking rate usd per sqft: 11.39; retail: vacancy percent: 5.02, asking rate usd per sqft: 21.5; office: vacancy percent: 12, asking rate usd per sqft: 23.66; multifamily: vacancy percent: 10.5, asking rate usd per sqft: 1.77mixed | Second quarter 2026 | Colorado Springs commercial real estate market | Used in scoring | [14] |
| Downtown retail, office, and visitation conditions in Q2 2026 | retail vacancy percent: 5.3; retail net absorption sqft: 30,591; retail avg rent nnn usd per sqft: 22.35; office vacancy percent: 10.4; office net absorption sqft: 1,215; office avg rent nnn usd per sqft: 17.95; downtown visits q2: 4,200,000; visits yoy change percent: 3.6; additional values omittedmixed | Second quarter 2026; data as of July 21, 2026 | Downtown Colorado Springs | Context only | [15] |
| CO 21 Powers Boulevard and Airport Road interchange construction remains active in 2026 | project: Diverging diamond interchange replacing the signalized Powers Boulevard/Airport Road intersection; construction start: 2024-06-24; traffic impacts: lane closures, traffic shifts, ramp and turning-movement changes, construction vehicle activity; corridor role: Airport Road is a critical access point for the west gate of Peterson Space Force Baseproject | Active construction through 2026; current project page accessed August 7, 2026 | Powers Boulevard (CO 21/US 24) at Airport Road, east Colorado Springs | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| I-25 Fillmore Street to Garden of the Gods Road project remains active through late September 2026 | project: Acceleration and deceleration lanes and related operational improvements; construction start: 2023-10-31; anticipated completion: late September 2026; traffic impacts: periodic overnight lane closures, ramp closures, detours, work-zone activityproject | Construction began October 2023; anticipated completion late September 2026 | I-25 between Fillmore Street and Garden of the Gods Road, Colorado Springs | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| Citywide Development Impact fee applicability and collection conditions | applies to: new buildings, additions to existing buildings, conversions to more intensive uses; assessment triggers include: new or additional dwelling units, development plan or amendment, individualized finding of substantial need for additional public services; collection timing: before building permit issuance, or upon entitlement approval when no building permit is required; fee components: police capital expansion fee, fire protection capital expansion fee; annual recalculation: yesregulatory rule | 2026 S-21 current codification accessed August 7, 2026 | Colorado Springs, Colorado | Context only | [18] |
| PPRBD publishes valuation-based commercial building permit and plan-examination fee formulas | commercial regional valuation modifier: 0.97; plan examination fee percent of building permit fee: 28; sign permit base fee usd: 30; trade attachment fee usd each: 100; fee calculator available: yesmixed | Current schedule accessed August 7, 2026; 2025 ICC valuation data effective June 30, 2025 | PPRBD jurisdictions including Colorado Springs | Context only | [19] |
| Contractor licensing and plan review are required for covered permit work | contractor license needed for permits: yes; most new or remodel construction requires plan review: yes; license classes are scope limited: yesregulatory rule | Current rules accessed August 7, 2026 | PPRBD jurisdictions including Colorado Springs | Context only | [20] [21] |
| Historic Preservation Overlay properties are subject to exterior-work review standards | overlay: HP-O Historic Preservation Overlay; review considers: historical and architectural character, architectural style and materials, effects on distinctive exterior features, approved design standards; site specific: yesregulatory rule | 2026 S-21 current codification accessed August 7, 2026 | Designated HP-O properties and areas in Colorado Springs | Conditional relationship | [22] [23] |
| Covered signs require permit review under the current Colorado Springs Sign Code | sign permit required for covered signs: yes; manager review before related building permit: yes; rules vary by sign type and site conditions: yesregulatory rule | Current sign code accessed August 7, 2026 | Colorado Springs, Colorado | Conditional relationship | [24] |
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, Jan-Pro International reached 70.88 after target-market demand +1.0 pts and labor and staffing friction -0.1 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. 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 Utility Delta Audit: A Private Equity Real Estate AnalysisInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Forensic Municipal Constraint and Structural Friction ReportInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - B start(9)Internal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4QuickFacts: Colorado Springs city, Colorado
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households, 2020-2024 ACS period, Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2020-2024, and Veterans, 2020-2024
- 5Colorado Springs city, Colorado - Census Bureau Profile
Used for: Total housing units in 2024 ACS 1-year profile
- 6Occupational Employment and Wages in Colorado Springs - May 2025
Used for: Selected technical and management occupational shares and mean hourly wages in May 2025 and Selected frontline and trade mean hourly wages in May 2025
- 7Colorado Springs, CO Economy at a Glance
Used for: Unemployment rate in June 2026 and Selected nonfarm employment sectors in June 2026
- 8Fort Carson (FCCO) Fact Sheet
Used for: Fort Carson personnel, population, off-post residence, and local contracting scale
- 9Estimate of Economic Impact: Peterson AFB, FY25
Used for: Peterson Space Force Base personnel and economic impact in FY2025
- 10MS-32 Map of Areas Susceptible to Differential Heave in Expansive, Steeply Dipping Bedrock, City of Colorado Springs, Colorado
Used for: Mapped susceptibility to differential heave from expansive, steeply dipping bedrock exists within Colorado Springs and Expansive clay can swell with moisture and damage foundations and other improvements
- 11Expansive Soil and Rock
Used for: Expansive clay can swell with moisture and damage foundations and other improvements
- 12Geologic Hazards - SpringsView Map Service
Used for: Mapped susceptibility to differential heave from expansive, steeply dipping bedrock exists within Colorado Springs
- 13Colorado Springs Industrial Market View - First Half 2026
Used for: First-half 2026 small-bay industrial demand and supply constraint
- 15Q2 2026 Market Report: Downtown Colorado Springs
Used for: Downtown retail, office, and visitation conditions in Q2 2026
- 16CO 21 Powers Boulevard and Airport Road Interchange
Used for: CO 21 Powers Boulevard and Airport Road interchange construction remains active in 2026
- 17I-25 Acceleration/Deceleration Lanes from Fillmore Street to Garden of the Gods Road
Used for: I-25 Fillmore Street to Garden of the Gods Road project remains active through late September 2026
- 18Colorado Springs Code 7.5.532: Citywide Development Impact Fees
Used for: Citywide Development Impact fee applicability and collection conditions
- 19RBD Current Building Permit Fee Schedule
Used for: PPRBD publishes valuation-based commercial building permit and plan-examination fee formulas
- 20Contractor Information
Used for: Contractor licensing and plan review are required for covered permit work
- 21Building Contractor License Application
Used for: Contractor licensing and plan review are required for covered permit work
- 22Colorado Springs Code 7.2.608: HP-O Historic Preservation Overlay
Used for: Historic Preservation Overlay properties are subject to exterior-work review standards
- 23Colorado Springs Code 7.5.528: Historic Resource Alteration or Demolition
Used for: Historic Preservation Overlay properties are subject to exterior-work review standards
- 24Colorado Springs Code 7.4.1307: Sign Types and Criteria by Sign Category
Used for: Covered signs require permit review under the current Colorado Springs Sign Code
- 25
- 26
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.