69.1 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in New Haven, Connecticut
We compared 14 franchise concepts for New Haven, Connecticut. Household service demand was a leading positive mechanism. Territory and submarket uncertainty 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
30Sources used
17Primary sources
27Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
1.3 points average among 13 affected concepts
0.5 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 12 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for New Haven, Connecticut
City Wide, HomeSmiles, and Pillar To Post Home Inspectors produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Household service demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 8 exposed concepts, adding 0.9 points on average. Territory and submarket uncertainty was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.5 points on average. Jan-Pro International was especially relationship-sensitive: removing frontline labor pressure moved it from #10 to #2 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 72.8Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +3.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.9 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in New Haven, Connecticut
Recent housing delivery expands the resident household service base
This relationship affected 8 concepts and added 0.9 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Households in the 2020-2024 Census reporting period: 54,773 households. [4] [5] [6]
Current office-market conditions vary materially across New Haven submarkets
This relationship affected 14 concepts and reduced 0.5 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: New Haven office market vacancy and asking rent at midyear 2026: overall vacancy percent: 16.5; asking rent usd psf: 23.55; ytd net absorption sqft: 56,884; ytd leasing activity sqft: 129,784 structured office market metrics. [20]
recurring-commercial-service
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was target-market demand, while the main constraint was labor and staffing friction. [4] [11] [20] [7] [9] [8] [10] [12]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Recent housing delivery expands the resident household service base1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
Yale creates a large, addressable institutional account base1 modeled effect
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Yale New Haven Hospital and city healthcare activity support institutional service demand1 modeled effect
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
Yale wage schedules create direct competition for overlapping service, security, and clerical labor1 modeled effect
Frontline labor pressureLabor and staffing 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 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.8
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +3.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +3.3 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.80 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 | +3.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.80 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.8 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +3.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#8
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.2
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +2.2 pts Target-market 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.2 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.21 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| 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 | -0.5 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.21 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#10
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +1.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Territory quality
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.3 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.13 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.4 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.13 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#5
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Territory quality
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.93 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 | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.5 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.93 |
| 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
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#6
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Territory quality
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 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.85 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 | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.5 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.85 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#8
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Territory quality
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.83 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 | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.5 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.83 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#7
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +1.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Territory quality
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 | |
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.82 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.82 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#9
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Territory quality
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 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 | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.79 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#9
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Territory quality
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 | +0.7 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -0.1 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.49 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 | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.49 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#10
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +2.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.9 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.4 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.9 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.13 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 | +2.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.4 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.13 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#14
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 pts Territory quality
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.09 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.3 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.91 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.3
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.1 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.1 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand | +0.4 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.75 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 | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.5 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.25 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.0
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.9 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 |
| -0.9 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.01 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.5 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.99 |
| 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
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.6
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.0 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 |
| -1.0 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -1.0 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.38 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 | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.0 |
| 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 | -1.0 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.62 |
| 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
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #13–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +3.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.80 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.8 |
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 effectPositive local support
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. HomeSmiles moved from #2 to #11, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected+1.3 pts
Average across all concepts+1.2 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Population Change From The April 2020 Estimate Base To July 20253.6 percent
- Households In The 2020 2024 Census Reporting Period54,773 households
- More Than 1,500 New Housing Units Came Online During 20251,500 housing units minimum
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+3.3 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+2.4 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+2.2 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+1.4 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+1.3 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #5 to #8, 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 rank6
What we observed
- Acs Derived Housing Profile Indicates An Old, Multifamily Heavy Housing Stockhousing units: 61,203; median year structure built: 1,950; multi unit share percent: 71.09 structured housing stock metrics
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
+0.5 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 9 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #10 to #2, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted9 of 14
Average among affected-0.7 pts
Average across all concepts-0.4 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Yale Frontline, Service, And Clerical Wage Schedules Overlap With Franchise Labor Poolsemployer: Yale University; cited roles: role: Security grade S2 new hire, hourly rate usd: 23.6, role: Clerical and Technical grade A, hourly rate usd: 22.58, role: Service and Maintenance grade 1 new hire, hourly rate usd: 22.67; connecticut minimum wage usd per hour: 16.94; affected franchise labor attributes: frontline hourly labor, administrative labor, high opening headcount, high turnover exposure; occupational overlap confidence: moderate; limitations: Yale compensation does not establish the market-clearing wage for every franchise; overlap is strongest for service, security, and clerical hiring. structured wage comparison
- Yale Employment Scale And Local Employee Residenceapproximate total employees: 14,000; employees residing in new haven approximate: 6,000 structured employment metrics
Concepts challenged most
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-1.9 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.1 pts
Workout AnytimeFitness
-1.0 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.9 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
-0.5 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Territory quality
We measured whether the territory structure could support the required customer density, service radius, and operating model.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #5 to #8, 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 rank6
What we observed
- New Haven Office Market Vacancy And Asking Rent At Midyear 2026overall vacancy percent: 16.5; asking rent usd psf: 23.55; ytd net absorption sqft: 56,884; ytd leasing activity sqft: 129,784 structured office market metrics
- Reported New Haven Office Submarkets Show Materially Different Vacancy And Asking Rent Conditionsnew haven cbd: vacancy percent: 9.9, asking rent usd psf: 25.66; new haven periphery: vacancy percent: 18.1, asking rent usd psf: 26.92; western new haven: vacancy percent: 30.7, asking rent usd psf: 20.73; eastern new haven: vacancy percent: 12.1, asking rent usd psf: 24.61; northern new haven: vacancy percent: 16.2, asking rent usd psf: 22.35 structured submarket metrics
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-1.0 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-0.6 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.6 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.5 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
- Referral ecosystemNo 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 WideHighly sensitive · tested #1–#8
#2 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #2–#10
#3 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsModerately sensitive · tested #3–#5
#4 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #1–#6
#5 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #4–#8
#6 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #3–#7
#7 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #4–#9
#8 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #2–#9
#9 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #5–#10
#10 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#14
#11 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #7–#12
#12 Rainbow International RestorationStable · tested #11–#12
#13 PuroCleanModerately sensitive · tested #11–#14
#14 Workout AnytimeStable · tested #13–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
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] [8] [12] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [22] [28] [29] [1]Competitive environment: [4] [3] [7] [12]Labor and staffing friction: [10] [9] [8] [11] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [16] [17] [18] [19] [2] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [20] [21] [27] [26] [28] [30] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [13] [14] [15] [25] [3]Referral ecosystem: [7] [8] [12] [13] [14] [15]Territory quality: [20] [16] [18] [19] [4] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [25] [23] [24] [27] [26] [28] [30] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Territory quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +3.3 pts | — | -0.4 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #2 HomeSmiles | +2.2 pts | — | -0.5 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #3 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +1.3 pts | +0.2 pts | — | -0.4 pts |
| #4 Mr. Rooter | +0.9 pts | +0.5 pts | — | -0.5 pts |
| #5 Aire Serv | +1.0 pts | +0.5 pts | -0.2 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #6 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.9 pts | +0.5 pts | — | -0.5 pts |
| #7 FASTSIGNS | +1.4 pts | — | — | -0.6 pts |
| #8 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.8 pts | +0.5 pts | — | -0.6 pts |
| #9 ActionCOACH | +0.7 pts | — | -0.1 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #10 Jan-Pro International | +2.4 pts | — | -1.9 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #11 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | — | -0.1 pts | -0.3 pts |
| #12 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.4 pts | +0.4 pts | -1.1 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #13 PuroClean | — | +0.4 pts | -0.9 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #14 Workout Anytime | +0.7 pts | — | -1.0 pts | -1.0 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, HomeSmiles, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to territory quality. 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, HomeSmiles, Mr. Rooter; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in New Haven, Connecticut
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.1Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in New Haven, Connecticut
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.0 to 69.3. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 69.3. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.4 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 1 point on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.3-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 69.0–69.3
- Category average
- 69.1
Rainbow International Restoration69.3
PuroClean69.0
Metric registry
The 27 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 | 138,774people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic receipts | New Haven, Connecticut | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 3.6percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic receipts | New Haven, Connecticut | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Households in the 2020-2024 Census reporting period | 54,773households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic receipts | New Haven, Connecticut | Used in scoring | [4] |
| More than 1,500 new housing units came online during 2025 | 1,500housing units minimum | Housing delivered in 2025 and development pipeline discussed in 2026 address | New Haven, Connecticut | Used in scoring | [5] [6] |
| Yale University student count | 15,657students | 2025 unless otherwise specified | Yale University, New Haven | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Yale employment scale and local employee residence | approximate total employees: 14,000; employees residing in new haven approximate: 6,000structured employment metrics | Current institutional and New Haven community figures accessed August 2026 | Yale University, New Haven | Used in scoring | [8] [9] |
| Yale New Haven Hospital employment and facility scale | employees more than: 12,000; beds: 1,541; physicians and advanced practitioners more than: 4,500structured institution metrics | Current hospital overview accessed August 2026 | Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven | Used in scoring | [12] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts reported by Census QuickFacts for 2022 | 3,400,426,000USD | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic receipts | New Haven, Connecticut | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Yale frontline, service, and clerical wage schedules overlap with franchise labor pools | employer: Yale University; cited roles: role: Security grade S2 new hire, hourly rate usd: 23.6, role: Clerical and Technical grade A, hourly rate usd: 22.58, role: Service and Maintenance grade 1 new hire, hourly rate usd: 22.67; connecticut minimum wage usd per hour: 16.94; affected franchise labor attributes: frontline hourly labor, administrative labor, high opening headcount, high turnover exposure; occupational overlap confidence: moderate; limitations: Yale compensation does not establish the market-clearing wage for every franchise; overlap is strongest for service, security, and clerical hiring.structured wage comparison | Hourly rates effective January 18, 2026 | Yale University and Connecticut wage floor | Used in scoring | [10] [11] [9] |
| ACS-derived housing profile indicates an old, multifamily-heavy housing stock | housing units: 61,203; median year structure built: 1,950; multi unit share percent: 71.09structured housing stock metrics | Current profile based on ACS 5-year estimates accessed August 2026 | New Haven, Connecticut | Used in scoring | [22] |
| New Haven office market vacancy and asking rent at midyear 2026 | overall vacancy percent: 16.5; asking rent usd psf: 23.55; ytd net absorption sqft: 56,884; ytd leasing activity sqft: 129,784structured office market metrics | Q2 2026 and 2026 year-to-date | New Haven office market | Used in scoring | [20] |
| Reported New Haven office submarkets show materially different vacancy and asking-rent conditions | new haven cbd: vacancy percent: 9.9, asking rent usd psf: 25.66; new haven periphery: vacancy percent: 18.1, asking rent usd psf: 26.92; western new haven: vacancy percent: 30.7, asking rent usd psf: 20.73; eastern new haven: vacancy percent: 12.1, asking rent usd psf: 24.61; northern new haven: vacancy percent: 16.2, asking rent usd psf: 22.35structured submarket metrics | Q2 2026 and 2026 year-to-date | New Haven office market submarkets | Used in scoring | [20] |
| Central Connecticut industrial vacancy rate in Q2 2026 | 4.5percent vacancy | Q2 2026 | Central Connecticut industrial market | Context only | [21] |
| Certain New Haven streets require residential parking permits and remain subject to sweeping and snow restrictions | permit required on designated streets: yes; unpermitted parking fine usd: 35structured parking rule | Current residential parking district rules accessed August 2026 | Residential parking districts in New Haven | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| Declared snow emergencies can impose downtown, snow-route, and residential parking bans | city roadway miles: 234; downtown and posted routes: parking prohibited on both sides during declared ban; residential areas: parking permitted only on even side during declared banstructured snow emergency rule | Current snow-emergency and parking-ban rules accessed August 2026 | New Haven, Connecticut | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| Chapel Street between College Street and York Street converted from one-way to two-way traffic in April 2026 | converted to two way: yes; commercial loading zones added: yes; most on street parking retained: yesstructured corridor change | Conversion beginning week of April 20, 2026 | Chapel Street between College Street and York Street | Context only | [18] |
| Downtown Crossing Phase III is complete and Phase IV is in planning | phase iii status: complete; phase iv status: planning initiatedstructured project status | Project status accessed August 2026 | Downtown Crossing / Route 34 corridor, New Haven | Context only | [19] |
| New Haven has three local historic districts administered by the Historic District Commission | Wooster Square Local Historic District, Quinnipiac River Local Historic District, City Point Local Historic Districtdistrict names | Current local historic districts accessed August 2026 | New Haven, Connecticut | Conditional relationship | [23] |
| Exterior alterations in a local historic district require a Certificate of Appropriateness under Connecticut law | certificate required for exterior architectural alteration: yesstructured regulatory rule | Current statute accessed August 2026 | New Haven local historic districts | Conditional relationship | [24] [23] |
| New Haven sign standards apply to new or renovated signage, changes of use, and signage tied to site-plan applications | new or renovated signage: yes; change of use: yes; site plan associated signage: yes; rules vary by zoning district and sign type: yesstructured regulatory rule | Codified through Ordinance No. 2026-0003; online content updated June 18, 2026 | New Haven, Connecticut | Conditional relationship | [25] |
| Selected City Plan application fees for fiscal year 2025-2026 | planned development district application usd: 3,700; detailed plan usd: 540; historic certificate of appropriateness usd: 250; flood plain development or variance usd: 500structured fee schedule | Fiscal Year 2025-2026 | New Haven, Connecticut | Context only | [26] |
| New Haven site-plan review level depends on project size and type | city plan commission residential net new units minimum: 3; city plan commission new construction or change use sqft minimum: 5,000; city plan commission parking spaces minimum: 10; drive up service window: City Plan Commission reviewstructured regulatory thresholds | Current review thresholds accessed August 2026 | New Haven, Connecticut | Context only | [27] |
| New Haven participates in the NFIP and FEMA Community Rating System and reports a 15 percent flood-insurance discount for residents | nfip participant: yes; community rating system discount percent: 15structured flood program metrics | Current NFIP and CRS information accessed August 2026 | New Haven, Connecticut | Context only | [28] |
| Connecticut adopted a Long Island Sound sea-level-change planning scenario of 0.5 meters by 2050 | sea level change meters: 0.5; sea level change feet inches: 1 foot 8 inches; horizon year: 2,050structured climate scenario | Adopted Connecticut planning scenario for Long Island Sound through 2050 | Long Island Sound, including New Haven coast | Context only | [29] |
| Yale supplier onboarding requires invitation, registration, documentation, review, and active supplier status | supplier gateway required: yes; business justification before invitation: yes; documentation and central review required: yesstructured procurement rule | Revision effective May 14, 2026 | Yale University procurement | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| YNHHS prospective vendors register through its vendor portal and SupplierGATEWAY; contract vendors need credentialing for onsite visits | vendor registration required for consideration: yes; suppliergateway used: yes; onsite vendor credentialing after award: yesstructured procurement rule | Current vendor process accessed August 2026 | Yale New Haven Health System procurement | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| City purchasing requirements escalate with purchase size | up to 5000 usd: purchase order; no three-quote requirement; 5001 to 24999 usd: three competitive quotes; COI for services; over 25000 usd: formal sealed ITB or RFPstructured procurement rule | Current procurement thresholds accessed August 2026 | City of New Haven procurement | Conditional relationship | [15] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects whose applicability is established at the report’s current geographic and operating scope.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 72.80 after target-market demand +3.3 pts, labor and staffing friction -0.4 pts, and territory quality -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. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the claims or metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is clearly distinguished from publicly accessible evidence.
- 1Strategic Utility Delta Audit: Structural Inefficiencies and CRE Arbitrage Across Local U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Forensic Audit of Municipal Structural Constraints and Deal-Killer LiabilitiesInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - B startInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4QuickFacts: New Haven city, Connecticut
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households in the 2020-2024 Census reporting period, and Health care and social assistance receipts reported by Census QuickFacts for 2022
- 52026 State of the City Address
Used for: More than 1,500 new housing units came online during 2025
- 6Mayor Elicker and Winchester Partners Cut the Ribbon on The Winston
Used for: More than 1,500 new housing units came online during 2025
- 7Yale Facts
Used for: Yale University student count
- 8Office of New Haven Affairs
Used for: Yale employment scale and local employee residence
- 9New Haven Hiring Initiative
Used for: Yale employment scale and local employee residence and Yale frontline, service, and clerical wage schedules overlap with franchise labor pools
- 10Wage Ranges
Used for: Yale frontline, service, and clerical wage schedules overlap with franchise labor pools
- 11Governor Lamont Announces Connecticut's Minimum Wage Will Increase to $16.94 on January 1, 2026
Used for: Yale frontline, service, and clerical wage schedules overlap with franchise labor pools
- 12About Yale New Haven Hospital
Used for: Yale New Haven Hospital employment and facility scale
- 133401 PR.01 Supplier Setup and Change
Used for: Yale supplier onboarding requires invitation, registration, documentation, review, and active supplier status
- 14Vendors
Used for: YNHHS prospective vendors register through its vendor portal and SupplierGATEWAY; contract vendors need credentialing for onsite visits
- 15How the City buys goods and services
Used for: City purchasing requirements escalate with purchase size
- 16Residential Parking
Used for: Certain New Haven streets require residential parking permits and remain subject to sweeping and snow restrictions
- 17Snow Removal
Used for: Declared snow emergencies can impose downtown, snow-route, and residential parking bans
- 18Chapel Street to Convert to Two-Way Traffic Between College Street and York Street
Used for: Chapel Street between College Street and York Street converted from one-way to two-way traffic in April 2026
- 19Downtown Crossing
Used for: Downtown Crossing Phase III is complete and Phase IV is in planning
- 20New Haven Office MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: New Haven office market vacancy and asking rent at midyear 2026 and Reported New Haven office submarkets show materially different vacancy and asking-rent conditions
- 21Q2 2026 Central Connecticut Industrial Report
Used for: Central Connecticut industrial vacancy rate in Q2 2026
- 23Historic District Commission
Used for: New Haven has three local historic districts administered by the Historic District Commission and Exterior alterations in a local historic district require a Certificate of Appropriateness under Connecticut law
- 24Chapter 97a - Historic Districts and Historic Properties
Used for: Exterior alterations in a local historic district require a Certificate of Appropriateness under Connecticut law
- 25New Haven Zoning Ordinance - Section 60.3 Signs
Used for: New Haven sign standards apply to new or renovated signage, changes of use, and signage tied to site-plan applications
- 26Application & Fees - Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Fee Schedule
Used for: Selected City Plan application fees for fiscal year 2025-2026
- 27Site Plan Review
Used for: New Haven site-plan review level depends on project size and type
- 28Flood Information
Used for: New Haven participates in the NFIP and FEMA Community Rating System and reports a 15 percent flood-insurance discount for residents
- 29CT Sea Level Rise
Used for: Connecticut adopted a Long Island Sound sea-level-change planning scenario of 0.5 meters by 2050
- 30
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.