70.9 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Des Moines, Iowa
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Des Moines, Iowa. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
24Sources used
14Primary sources
30Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
1 point average among 10 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 9 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Des Moines, Iowa
City Wide, ActionCOACH, and FASTSIGNS produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Local business demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 10 exposed concepts, adding 1 point on average. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing local business demand moved it from #1 to #4 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 | 72.7Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.0 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 72.2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 72.1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +1.8 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.8 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsReferral ecosystem | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsReferral ecosystem | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Des Moines, Iowa
Resident, household, employer-firm, and sector activity provide a broad local business prospect base
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 1 point on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Households, 2020-2024: 90,105 households. [6]
Approximately two-thirds of Des Moines housing stock was built before 1978 and Polk County reports 1955 as the median housing year
The age profile supports repair, inspection, restoration, and system-replacement exposure, but it does not establish that each property retains original plumbing, electrical, roofing, or HVAC systems. Designated historic properties add a separate site-specific exterior-review gate rather than a citywide compliance burden. [9] [16] [19]
asset-light-b2b
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was target-market demand, while the main constraint was property replacement-cycle demand. [8] [6] [22] [20] [21]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Resident, household, employer-firm, and sector activity provide a broad local business prospect base1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
A large pre-1978 housing share supports recurring repair, inspection, and replacement exposure1 modeled effect
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Small-to-mid-sized and infill industrial space can be tighter than headline vacancy suggests1 modeled effect
Service-base space scarcityReal estate and site feasibility
Financial, professional, government, and institutional concentration supports relationship-based account development but formal public procurement adds process gates3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 1 source
- Preliminary financial activities employment in June 2026: 56,700 jobs [8]
- Preliminary professional and business services employment in June 2026: 56,000 jobs [8]
- Preliminary government employment in June 2026: 53,500 jobs [8]
Professional and institutional relationship densityReferral ecosystem
Institutional procurement-cycle frictionSales and customer acquisition
Northeast Mixmaster reconstruction creates an active corridor-specific route disruption through an interchange carrying high daily traffic1 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.7
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +2.0 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +2.0 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.72 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.7 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.72 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#4
#2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.2
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +1.6 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +2.22 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.22 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#6
#3Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.1
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +1.8 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.8 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Service-base space scarcity EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +2.14 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.14 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#10
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.9
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.8 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.8 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.2 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.94 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.2 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.94 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#12
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.6
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.1 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.1 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.62 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.62 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#8
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.4
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.40 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.4 |
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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#6
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Service-base space scarcity EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.94 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.94 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#10
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Service-base space scarcity EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.93 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#11
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.90 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.90 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#10
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Service-base space scarcity EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| 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
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#10
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.52 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.52 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#13
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.43 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.43 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.24 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.24 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #14–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.7 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.72 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectPositive local support
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 10 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 14 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #4 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted10 of 14
Average among affected+1.0 pts
Average across all concepts+0.7 pts
Concepts changing rank14
What we observed
- Resident Population Estimate On July 1, 2025212,086 people
- Households, 2020 202490,105 households
- Selected City Business Receipts And Sales In 2022health care and social assistance thousand usd: 3,528,485; transportation and warehousing thousand usd: 1,815,480; accommodation and food services thousand usd: 731,562; retail sales thousand usd: 2,838,137
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+2.0 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+1.8 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.8 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+1.6 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.1 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. Mister Sparky Electric moved from #11 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.5 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank7
What we observed
- Owner Occupied Housing Unit Rate, 2020 202460.5 percent
- Median Year Of Housing Reported By Polk County For Des Moines1,955 year
- Hud Funded Polk County Lead Hazard Remediation Target Announced For A Four Year Program Concluding In 2030160 housing units
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.6 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.6 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.6 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.5 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Referral ecosystem
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 8 concepts changed position. PuroClean moved from #7 to #11, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.5 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank8
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.7 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.6 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.5 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.5 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Labor and staffing frictionNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideModerately sensitive · tested #1–#4
#2 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #2–#6
#3 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #2–#10
#4 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #3–#12
#5 HomeSmilesModerately sensitive · tested #5–#8
#6 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #1–#6
#7 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #2–#10
#8 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #3–#11
#9 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #5–#10
#10 Aire ServModerately sensitive · tested #7–#10
#11 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #9–#13
#12 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsStable · tested #11–#12
#13 Tiger AdjustersModerately sensitive · tested #11–#13
#14 Workout AnytimeStable · tested #14–#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: [6] [8] [22] [21] [13] [12] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [9] [6] [23] [3]Competitive environment: [6] [8] [10] [5]Labor and staffing friction: [7] [8] [4] [3]Transportation, routing, and parking: [14] [18] [19] [6] [5]Real estate and site feasibility: [10] [11] [12] [13] [19] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [20] [21] [8] [6] [5]Referral ecosystem: [8] [20] [21] [22] [6]Territory quality: [19] [16] [18] [14] [10] [13] [5]Regulatory and operating friction: [15] [16] [17] [19] [4] [5] [24]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +2.0 pts | — | +0.7 pts |
| #2 ActionCOACH | +1.6 pts | — | +0.6 pts |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +1.8 pts | — | +0.3 pts |
| #4 Jan-Pro International | +1.8 pts | — | +0.2 pts |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +1.1 pts | — | +0.5 pts |
| #6 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.4 pts | +0.6 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #7 PuroClean | — | +0.5 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #8 Rainbow International Restoration | — | +0.5 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #9 Mr. Rooter | +0.3 pts | +0.6 pts | — |
| #10 Aire Serv | +0.3 pts | +0.6 pts | — |
| #11 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.5 pts | — |
| #12 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.2 pts | +0.3 pts | — |
| #13 Tiger Adjusters | +0.2 pts | — | — |
| #14 Workout Anytime | — | — | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, ActionCOACH, FASTSIGNS led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to competitive environment. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for ActionCOACH, FASTSIGNS, Jan-Pro International; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Des Moines, Iowa
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.9Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Des Moines, Iowa
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.9 to 70.9. PuroClean ranked highest at 70.9. Referral ecosystem added 0.5 points on average among the affected concepts.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.0-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.9–70.9
- Category average
- 70.9
PuroClean70.9
Rainbow International Restoration70.9
Metric registry
The 30 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 | 212,086people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic receipts and firm counts where available | Des Moines, Iowa | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | -0.9percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic receipts and firm counts where available | Des Moines, Iowa | Context only | [6] |
| Households, 2020-2024 | 90,105households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic receipts and firm counts where available | Des Moines, Iowa | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2020-2024 | 60.5percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic receipts and firm counts where available | Des Moines, Iowa | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2020-2024 | 194,700USD | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic receipts and firm counts where available | Des Moines, Iowa | Context only | [6] |
| All employer firms, reference year 2022 | 4,036employer firms | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic receipts and firm counts where available | Des Moines, Iowa | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Selected city business receipts and sales in 2022 | health care and social assistance thousand usd: 3,528,485; transportation and warehousing thousand usd: 1,815,480; accommodation and food services thousand usd: 731,562; retail sales thousand usd: 2,838,137thousand USD | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic receipts and firm counts where available | Des Moines, Iowa | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Approximate share of Des Moines housing stock built before the 1978 residential lead-paint ban | approximately two thirdsqualitative share | Current program announcement; Des Moines housing-age statement and four-year remediation plan through 2030 | Des Moines, Iowa | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Median year of housing reported by Polk County for Des Moines | 1,955year | Current program announcement; Des Moines housing-age statement and four-year remediation plan through 2030 | Des Moines, Iowa | Used in scoring | [9] |
| HUD-funded Polk County lead-hazard remediation target announced for a four-year program concluding in 2030 | 160housing units | Current program announcement; Des Moines housing-age statement and four-year remediation plan through 2030 | Polk County program serving qualified homes including Des Moines | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Des Moines-West Des Moines MSA unemployment rate in May 2026 | 2.9percent | Labor-force data through May 2026 and preliminary nonfarm employment through June 2026 | Des Moines-West Des Moines, Iowa MSA | Context only | [8] |
| Selected Des Moines MSA mean hourly wages compared with U.S. averages in May 2025 | all occupations: des moines: 31.72, us: 33.54; food preparation and serving: des moines: 15.38, us: 17.86; office and administrative support: des moines: 25.01, us: 24.79; construction and extraction: des moines: 31.49, us: 31.42; installation maintenance and repair: des moines: 29.76, us: 30.44USD per hour | May 2025 | Des Moines-West Des Moines, Iowa MSA | Context only | [7] |
| Preliminary financial activities employment in June 2026 | 56,700jobs | Labor-force data through May 2026 and preliminary nonfarm employment through June 2026 | Des Moines-West Des Moines, Iowa MSA | Supports modeled relationship | [8] |
| Preliminary professional and business services employment in June 2026 | 56,000jobs | Labor-force data through May 2026 and preliminary nonfarm employment through June 2026 | Des Moines-West Des Moines, Iowa MSA | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Preliminary government employment in June 2026 | 53,500jobs | Labor-force data through May 2026 and preliminary nonfarm employment through June 2026 | Des Moines-West Des Moines, Iowa MSA | Supports modeled relationship | [8] |
| Approximate Drake University student enrollment | 4,204students | Current class profile accessed August 2026 | Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa | Supports modeled relationship | [22] |
| Overall Des Moines industrial vacancy in Q1 2026 | 8.1percent | Q1 2026 industrial market summary | Des Moines industrial market | Conditional relationship | [11] |
| Small-to-mid-sized industrial requirements were a concentration of demand; tenants favored second-generation space and infill availability was described as limited | small to mid demand concentrated: yes; second generation preference: yes; infill inventory limited: yes; speculative pipeline muted: yescategorical profile | Q1 2026 | Des Moines industrial market | Conditional relationship | [10] |
| Des Moines office vacancy in Q2 2026 | 13.6percent | Q2 2026 | Des Moines office market | Conditional relationship | [12] |
| Year-to-date Des Moines office net absorption through Q2 2026 | 385,000square feet | Q2 2026 | Des Moines office market | Conditional relationship | [12] |
| Share of downtown ground-floor commercial spaces reported vacant in May 2026 | nearly one thirdqualitative share | Downtown ground-floor commercial conditions reported May 2026 | Central downtown Des Moines core | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| City staff described a mismatch between older large storefront formats and current demand for smaller, more flexible, experience-oriented spaces | older large format mismatch: yes; smaller flexible space preference reported: yescategorical profile | Downtown ground-floor commercial conditions reported May 2026 | Central downtown Des Moines core | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| Northeast Mixmaster reconstruction conditions | daily traffic count 2022: 89,000; estimated completion year: 2,028; ne 38th street detour active from spring 2025: yesproject profile | Active reconstruction program; completion estimate 2028; current detour information accessed August 2026 | Northeast Mixmaster and I-35/I-80/I-235 approaches | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| Des Moines code designates snow-condition parking restrictions, snow routes, and odd/even snow-parking zones | snow condition restrictions: yes; snow routes designated: yes; odd even snow parking zones designated: yesrule profile | Current code accessed August 2026 | Des Moines snow routes and odd/even snow-parking zones | Conditional relationship | [18] [19] |
| Exterior alterations within a historic district require a certificate of appropriateness; exterior features expressly include signs | certificate of appropriateness required: yes; signs are exterior features: yes; stop work authority for nonconforming work: yesrule profile | Current code accessed August 2026 | Designated Des Moines historic districts, landmarks, and landmark sites | Conditional relationship | [16] [19] |
| Food-service grease-interceptor requirements include minimum capacity and recurring cleaning rules | minimum interceptor capacity gallons: 1,000; maximum single unit capacity gallons: 5,000; clean when fog and solids reach percent design liquid level: 25; default cleaning interval months max: 3; certified hauler required: yesrule profile | Current code accessed August 2026 | Des Moines/WRA wastewater service area as applicable | Context only | [17] [15] |
| State of Iowa formal procurement uses IMPACS and restricts solicitation-period communications to written inquiries through the designated Issuing Officer | impacs hosted solicitations: yes; written inquiries required: yes; designated issuing officer only during solicitation: yes; improper contact may disqualify vendor: yesrule profile | Current State of Iowa procurement guidance accessed August 2026 | State of Iowa agencies; Des Moines is a principal state-government procurement center | Supports modeled relationship | [20] |
| State solicitation for fire-protection repair, maintenance, and testing at Des Moines metro facilities | solicitation type: Request for Bids; valid from: 2026-05-20; valid until: 2026-06-19; agency address: 1305 E Walnut St, Des Moines, IA 50319solicitation profile | Solicitation valid May 20, 2026 through June 19, 2026 | State facilities in the Des Moines metro area | Supports modeled relationship | [21] |
| Iowa DNR describes the Des Moines Lobe as smooth-to-irregular plains with loamy till and Clarion-Nicollet-Webster Mollisols | surficial material: loamy till with no loess; soil group: Clarion-Nicollet-Webster Mollisols; annual precipitation inches range: 28, 31; freeze free days range: 145, 160ecoregion profile | Ecoregion description accessed August 2026 | Des Moines Lobe, central Iowa | Context only | [23] |
| City GIS maintains parcel-level and district layers relevant to site feasibility and operating conditions | zoning district: yes; conditional zone: yes; local historic district: yes; snow parking zones: yes; snow route districts: yes; special investment district: yes; parking garages: yes; government facilities: yes; additional values omittedlayer profile | Current map layers accessed August 2026 | Des Moines, Iowa | Conditional relationship | [19] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects that apply without an unresolved site, territory, customer, or project gate.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 72.72 after target-market demand +2.0 pts and referral ecosystem +0.7 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Franchise-to-city operating-fit model definitionInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Valid city JSON exampleInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Opportunities in U.S. Sub-Markets: A Utility Delta AuditInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4Forensic Municipal Audit: Structural Constraints and Hidden Capital FrictionsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 5Franchise data - remake - des.csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 6QuickFacts: Des Moines city, Iowa
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households, 2020-2024, Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2020-2024, and Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2020-2024
- 7Occupational Employment and Wages in Des Moines-West Des Moines — May 2025
Used for: Selected Des Moines MSA mean hourly wages compared with U.S. averages in May 2025
- 8Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA Economy at a Glance
Used for: Des Moines-West Des Moines MSA unemployment rate in May 2026, Preliminary financial activities employment in June 2026, Preliminary professional and business services employment in June 2026, and Preliminary government employment in June 2026
- 9Polk County Partners with U.S. Housing and Urban Development to Combat Lead Poisoning Hazards
Used for: Approximate share of Des Moines housing stock built before the 1978 residential lead-paint ban, Median year of housing reported by Polk County for Des Moines, and HUD-funded Polk County lead-hazard remediation target announced for a four-year program concluding in 2030
- 10Q1 2026 Des Moines Industrial Market Report
Used for: Small-to-mid-sized industrial requirements were a concentration of demand; tenants favored second-generation space and infill availability was described as limited
- 11Des Moines MarketBeat Reports — Q1 2026 Industrial Report summary
Used for: Overall Des Moines industrial vacancy in Q1 2026
- 12Des Moines Office Figures Q2 2026
Used for: Des Moines office vacancy in Q2 2026 and Year-to-date Des Moines office net absorption through Q2 2026
- 13Almost one-third of Des Moines' downtown storefronts are vacant
Used for: Share of downtown ground-floor commercial spaces reported vacant in May 2026 and City staff described a mismatch between older large storefront formats and current demand for smaller, more flexible, experience-oriented spaces
- 14Northeast Mixmaster Construction — FAQs
Used for: Northeast Mixmaster reconstruction conditions
- 15Code of Ordinances — Des Moines, Iowa
Used for: Food-service grease-interceptor requirements include minimum capacity and recurring cleaning rules
- 16Chapter 58 — Historical Preservation
Used for: Exterior alterations within a historic district require a certificate of appropriateness; exterior features expressly include signs
- 17Article III — Regulation of Industrial Wastewater and Commercial Wastewater
Used for: Food-service grease-interceptor requirements include minimum capacity and recurring cleaning rules
- 18Chapter 114 — Traffic and Vehicles, snow-condition parking provisions
Used for: Des Moines code designates snow-condition parking restrictions, snow routes, and odd/even snow-parking zones
- 19City of Des Moines GIS — Show Me My House map-service legend
Used for: Des Moines code designates snow-condition parking restrictions, snow routes, and odd/even snow-parking zones, Exterior alterations within a historic district require a certificate of appropriateness; exterior features expressly include signs, and City GIS maintains parcel-level and district layers relevant to site feasibility and operating conditions
- 20Bidding Opportunities
Used for: State of Iowa formal procurement uses IMPACS and restricts solicitation-period communications to written inquiries through the designated Issuing Officer
- 21State of Iowa Bid 005-RFB-2725-2026 — Fire Protection Systems Repair, Maintenance, and Testing
Used for: State solicitation for fire-protection repair, maintenance, and testing at Des Moines metro facilities
- 22Drake University Class Profile
Used for: Approximate Drake University student enrollment
- 23BioNet — Ecoregion 47b: Des Moines Lobe
Used for: Iowa DNR describes the Des Moines Lobe as smooth-to-irregular plains with loamy till and Clarion-Nicollet-Webster Mollisols
- 24
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.