71.5 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Akron, Ohio
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Akron, Ohio. Professional and institutional relationship density was a leading positive mechanism. Winter route friction 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
21Local sources used
18Local 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 7 affected concepts
0.6 points average reduction among 12 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 11 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Akron, Ohio
City Wide, Rainbow International Restoration, and PuroClean produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Professional and institutional relationship density was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 7 exposed concepts, adding 0.7 points on average. One important asymmetry was that the same local condition supported professional and institutional relationship density while also creating institutional procurement-cycle friction. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing healthcare institutional service demand moved it from #1 to #5 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 71.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsSales and customer acquisition | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 71.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.6 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 71.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.8 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Aire ServHome & Property ServicesInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.7 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.4 ptsSales and customer acquisition | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsSales and customer acquisition | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsSales and customer acquisition | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsReferral ecosystem | -1.0 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.5 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | HomeSmilesHome & Property ServicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Akron, Ohio
University and healthcare networks support professional relationships while adding procurement friction
The same local condition created complementary effects: professional and institutional relationship density supported exposed concepts while institutional procurement-cycle friction constrained others. [12] [15]
Freeze-thaw exposure creates repair demand and winter operating friction
This relationship affected 12 concepts and reduced 0.6 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: 1991-2020 annual precipitation and snowfall normals: precipitation inches: 41.57; snowfall inches: 47.2 climate normals. [8] [9]
property-restoration
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was property replacement-cycle demand, while the main constraint was transportation, routing, and parking. [5] [6] [12] [11] [1] [14] [15]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Freeze-thaw exposure creates repair demand and winter operating friction2 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- 1991-2020 annual precipitation and snowfall normals: precipitation inches: 41.57; snowfall inches: 47.2 climate normals [8]
- Average first fall and last spring 32°F freeze dates: first fall: October 19; last spring: April 29 calendar dates [9]
Freeze-thaw repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Winter route frictionTransportation, routing, and parking
Akron-centered healthcare institutions create institutional service demand1 modeled effect
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
University and healthcare networks support professional relationships while adding procurement friction3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- University of Akron total fall 2025 enrollment: 15,318 students [14]
- University of Akron competitive-bid thresholds: services over usd: 100,000; materials over usd: 75,000 USD purchase threshold [15]
- Physicians represented by Summa Health Network: 2,300 physicians over [12]
Professional and institutional relationship densityReferral ecosystem
Institutional procurement-cycle frictionSales and customer acquisition
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.9
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Sales and customer acquisition
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 |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +1.1 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition |
| -0.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.91 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | 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 | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | -0.6 |
| Referral ecosystem | +1.1 |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.91 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#5
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.7
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +1.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.6 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
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 | +1.3 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.8 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.66 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| 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 | +0.8 |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.66 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#5
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.3
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +1.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.8 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
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 | +1.3 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.8 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.34 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 | +1.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.8 |
| 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 | +0.8 |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.34 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#7
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +1.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.7 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
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 | +1.6 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.92 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.7 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.92 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#12
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.9 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.4 pts Sales and customer acquisition
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 |
| +0.9 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition |
| -0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.74 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | -0.4 |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.9 |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.74 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#11
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Sales and customer acquisition
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 |
| Sales and customer acquisition |
| -0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.3 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.55 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | 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 | -0.3 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | -0.4 |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.55 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#14
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Sales and customer acquisition
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 |
| +0.5 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition |
| -0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.46 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | -0.4 |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.46 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#11
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.6 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -1.0 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.0 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 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 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 | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.0 |
| 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 | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.24 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#14
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.7 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.5 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
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 | +0.7 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.19 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.5 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.19 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#11
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
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 |
| +0.5 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.06 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.5 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.06 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#13
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.8 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.8 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
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 | +0.8 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.05 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.8 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.8 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.05 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#13
#12Tier 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: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#14
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.21 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | +0.1 |
| 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 | -0.3 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.79 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.9 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.9 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.30 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.9 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.70 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#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 | +1.4 |
| 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 | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | -0.6 |
| Referral ecosystem | +1.1 |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.91 |
| 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.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 14 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #6 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.6 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank14
What we observed
- Summa Health System Scale Headquartered In Akronmain hospitals: 2; health centers: 20; employees minimum: 8,500; employed physicians and apps approx: 700 organization counts
- Akron Children’s 2025 System Scalehospitals: 2; pediatric offices: 44; urgent cares: 5; primary specialty locations: 50; outpatient visits: 1,637,838 systemwide counts
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.4 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.0 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.5 pts
HomeSmilesHome & Property Services
+0.5 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.2 pts
Observed model effectPositive local support
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, 12 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #4 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+1.0 pts
Average across all concepts+0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Total Housing Units In 2024 Acs 1 Year Profile94,725 housing units
- Derived Share Of Housing Units Built Before 197073.9 percent of housing units
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHome & Property Services
+1.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+1.3 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+1.3 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.8 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.7 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Transportation, routing, and parking
We recalculated route-dependent models after accounting for travel corridors, parking, and the number of productive stops they require.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 12 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. Mister Sparky Electric moved from #11 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted12 of 14
Average among affected-0.6 pts
Average across all concepts-0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank11
What we observed
- Vernon Odom Boulevard Resurfacing Authorized To Proceed In 2026segments: I-77 to Rhodes Avenue, Romig Road to Medina Line Road project segments
- Tallmadge Avenue Resurfacing Participatory Agreement Authorized In 2026yes project authorization
Concepts challenged most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.0 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.9 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-0.8 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.8 pts
Aire ServHome & Property Services
-0.7 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Sales and customer acquisition
We weighed the size of the prospect pool against local digital competition and the length of the relevant sales cycle.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 4 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 3 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #7 to #5, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted4 of 14
Average among affected-0.5 pts
Average across all concepts-0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank3
Concepts challenged most
City WideFacility management
-0.6 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-0.4 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-0.4 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
-0.4 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 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 14 concepts changed position. ActionCOACH moved from #5 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.7 pts
Average across all concepts+0.4 pts
Concepts changing rank14
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.1 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.9 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.8 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.8 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.6 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Labor and staffing frictionNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo 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 WideHighly sensitive · tested #1–#5
#2 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #1–#5
#3 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #2–#7
#4 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #1–#12
#5 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #2–#11
#6 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #3–#14
#7 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #4–#11
#8 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #5–#14
#9 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #6–#11
#10 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #6–#13
#11 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #7–#13
#12 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #8–#14
#13 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #9–#13
#14 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #10–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Score-changing factors
Factors that changed the calculated scores
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [10] [13]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [1] [6] [8] [9]Labor and staffing friction: [7]Transportation, routing, and parking: [8] [9] [17] [18]Real estate and site feasibility: [19] [21]Sales and customer acquisition: [15] [11] [12] [14]Referral ecosystem: [12] [14]Territory quality: [4] [17] [18]Regulatory and operating friction: [16]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Transportation, routing, and parking | Sales and customer acquisition | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +1.4 pts | — | -0.1 pts | -0.6 pts | +1.1 pts |
| #2 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.2 pts | +1.3 pts | -0.6 pts | — | +0.8 pts |
| #3 PuroClean | — | +1.3 pts | -0.8 pts | — | +0.8 pts |
| #4 Aire Serv | — | +1.6 pts | -0.7 pts | — | — |
| #5 ActionCOACH | +0.2 pts | — | — | -0.4 pts | +0.9 pts |
| #6 Jan-Pro International | +1.0 pts | — | -0.3 pts | -0.4 pts | +0.3 pts |
| #7 FASTSIGNS | +0.5 pts | — | -0.1 pts | -0.4 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #8 ZOOM DRAIN | — | +0.6 pts | -1.0 pts | — | +0.6 pts |
| #9 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | +0.7 pts | -0.5 pts | — | — |
| #10 HomeSmiles | +0.5 pts | — | -0.5 pts | — | — |
| #11 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.8 pts | -0.8 pts | — | — |
| #12 Workout Anytime | — | — | — | — | — |
| #13 Tiger Adjusters | +0.1 pts | — | -0.3 pts | — | — |
| #14 Mr. Rooter | — | +0.6 pts | -0.9 pts | — | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, Rainbow International Restoration, PuroClean led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from property replacement-cycle demand while remaining less exposed to transportation, routing, and parking. 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, Rainbow International Restoration, PuroClean; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Akron, Ohio
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
71.5Limited comparison: Restoration franchise opportunities assessed in Akron, Ohio
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 71.3 to 71.7. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 71.7. Property replacement-cycle demand added 1.3 points on average among the affected concepts. Transportation, routing, and parking reduced the exposed concepts by 0.7 points 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
- 71.3–71.7
- Category average
- 71.5
Rainbow International Restoration71.7
PuroClean71.3
Limited two-concept comparison
70.5Limited comparison: Home & Property Services franchise opportunities assessed in Akron, Ohio
2 Home & Property Services concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.1 to 70.9. Aire Serv ranked highest at 70.9. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.8 points on average among the affected concepts. Transportation, routing, and parking reduced the exposed concepts by 0.6 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.9-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.1–70.9
- Category average
- 70.5
Aire Serv70.9
HomeSmiles70.1
Metric registry
The 18 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | -0.4percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 ACS characteristics | Akron, Ohio | Context only | [4] |
| Households, 2020-2024 | 84,734households | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 ACS characteristics | Akron, Ohio | Context only | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2020-2024 | 50.7percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 ACS characteristics | Akron, Ohio | Context only | [4] |
| Total housing units in 2024 ACS 1-year profile | 94,725housing units | 2024 ACS 1-year estimates and 2020 Census profile | Akron, Ohio | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Derived share of housing units built before 1970 | 73.9percent of housing units | Research cited in the supplied Akron section; selected claims independently checked through August 10, 2026 | Akron, Ohio | Used in scoring | [1] [6] |
| 1991-2020 annual precipitation and snowfall normals | precipitation inches: 41.57; snowfall inches: 47.2climate normals | 1991-2020 climate normals | Akron-Canton climate station | Supports modeled relationship | [8] |
| Average first fall and last spring 32°F freeze dates | first fall: October 19; last spring: April 29calendar dates | 1991-2020 climate normals | Akron area | Supports modeled relationship | [9] |
| Summa Health system scale headquartered in Akron | main hospitals: 2; health centers: 20; employees minimum: 8,500; employed physicians and apps approx: 700organization counts | Current organization facts accessed August 2026; licensed-bed statement as of March 2026 | Akron-centered five-county service area | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Akron Children’s 2025 system scale | hospitals: 2; pediatric offices: 44; urgent cares: 5; primary specialty locations: 50; outpatient visits: 1,637,838systemwide counts | 2025 facts and statistics | Akron Children’s regional system | Used in scoring | [13] |
| University of Akron total fall 2025 enrollment | 15,318students | Fall 2025 | University of Akron system | Supports modeled relationship | [14] |
| University of Akron competitive-bid thresholds | services over usd: 100,000; materials over usd: 75,000USD purchase threshold | Current purchasing rules accessed August 2026 | University of Akron | Supports modeled relationship | [15] |
| Summa Health vendor onboarding and credentialing requirement | vendor registration required: yes; credentialing platforms: IntelliCentrics, Sec3ure, Reptraxrequirements | Current vendor rules accessed August 2026 | Summa Health system | Supports modeled relationship | [11] |
| Physicians represented by Summa Health Network | 2,300physicians over | Current network facts accessed August 2026 | Summa Health Network | Supports modeled relationship | [12] |
| Selected May 2025 mean hourly wages in Akron MSA compared with U.S. | all occupations: 30.49; food preparation serving: 16.65; building grounds cleaning: 18.57; office admin: 23.54; construction extraction: 32.82; installation maintenance repair: 29.14USD per hour | May 2025 | Akron, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [7] |
| Akron industrial vacancy rate reported for Q2 2025 | 4.1percent | Industrial metrics stated as Q2 2025 | Akron industrial market | Conditional relationship | [19] |
| Cleveland industrial vacancy and availability in Q2 2026 | vacancy percent: 3.9; availability percent: 6; under construction sqft: 324,000market metrics | Q2 2026 | Cleveland industrial market; regional comparison | Conditional relationship | [21] |
| Vernon Odom Boulevard resurfacing authorized to proceed in 2026 | segments: I-77 to Rhodes Avenue, Romig Road to Medina Line Roadproject segments | 2026 resurfacing authorization | Vernon Odom Boulevard / SR 261 corridor | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| Tallmadge Avenue resurfacing participatory agreement authorized in 2026 | yesproject authorization | 2026 road-resurfacing agreement authorization | Tallmadge Avenue corridor | Conditional relationship | [18] |
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 71.91 after target-market demand +1.4 pts, referral ecosystem +1.1 pts, sales and customer acquisition -0.6 pts, and transportation, routing, and parking -0.1 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Reports are checked for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability before publication.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 21, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Local evidence supporting this report
The city page keeps the local sources used for its visible findings and metrics. Franchise-source provenance stays with the underlying franchise research rather than being duplicated across every city page.
- 1Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Opportunities in U.S. Sub-Markets: A Utility Delta Audit
Used for: Derived share of housing units built before 1970
- 2Forensic Municipal Audit: Structural Constraints and Hidden Capital Frictions
- 3Franchise data - remake - des.csv
- 4QuickFacts: Akron city, Ohio
Used for: Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households, 2020-2024, and Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2020-2024
- 5Akron city, Ohio - Census Bureau Profile
Used for: Total housing units in 2024 ACS 1-year profile
- 6Akron, OH Zip Code List, Maps, Population and Demographics
Used for: Derived share of housing units built before 1970
- 7Occupational Employment and Wages in Akron — May 2025
Used for: Selected May 2025 mean hourly wages in Akron MSA compared with U.S.
- 8Akron-Canton Normals
Used for: 1991-2020 annual precipitation and snowfall normals
- 9Frost/Freeze Information
Used for: Average first fall and last spring 32°F freeze dates
- 10Summa Health System - About Us
Used for: Summa Health system scale headquartered in Akron
- 11Vendor Resources - Supply Chain
Used for: Summa Health vendor onboarding and credentialing requirement
- 12Summa Health Network | About Us
Used for: Physicians represented by Summa Health Network
- 13About Akron Children’s
Used for: Akron Children’s 2025 system scale
- 14The University of Akron Says Yes to Growth
Used for: University of Akron total fall 2025 enrollment
- 15Forms and Information for Faculty/Staff
Used for: University of Akron competitive-bid thresholds
- 16
- 17March 30, 2026 Akron City Council Meeting
Used for: Vernon Odom Boulevard resurfacing authorized to proceed in 2026
- 18March 2, 2026 Akron City Council Meeting
Used for: Tallmadge Avenue resurfacing participatory agreement authorized in 2026
- 19Exploring Akron Commercial Real Estate: Market Overview
Used for: Akron industrial vacancy rate reported for Q2 2025
- 20
- 21Cleveland Industrial Figures Q2 2026
Used for: Cleveland industrial vacancy and availability in Q2 2026
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.