68.5 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Madison, Wisconsin
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Madison, Wisconsin. Household service demand was a leading positive mechanism. Service-base space scarcity was a leading operating constraint.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
26Sources used
20Primary sources
28Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
0.9 points average among 13 affected concepts
0.9 points average reduction among 8 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 8 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Madison, Wisconsin
Mister Sparky Electric, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, and City Wide produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Household service demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 8 exposed concepts, adding 0.9 points on average. Service-base space scarcity was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.9 points on average. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing university and government account demand moved it from #3 to #9 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 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 71.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.5 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.5 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 71.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.1 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.9 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.8 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.7 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Madison, Wisconsin
Sustained housing construction and projected household growth expand the addressable residential-service base
This relationship affected 8 concepts and added 0.9 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: New homes completed from 2015 through 2024: new homes: 22,472; increase relative to prior housing stock: 20 homes and percent. [5] [4]
Very low flex and service-space vacancy constrains light-industrial service-base choice
This relationship affected 8 concepts and reduced 0.9 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Office Service / Flex inventory and vacancy in Cushman & Wakefield's Q2 2026 Madison industrial table: inventory sqft: 10,746,799; vacant sqft: 424,017; vacancy rate: 3.9; weighted average net rent psf: 8.43 sqft percent usd per sqft. [11]
scheduled-home-service
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was target-market demand, while the main constraint was real estate and site feasibility. [14] [15] [9] [10] [4] [5] [6] [11] [12] [1]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Sustained housing construction and projected household growth expand the addressable residential-service base1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
UW–Madison and the regional government employment base create a large institutional-account market1 modeled effect
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Very low flex and service-space vacancy constrains light-industrial service-base choice1 modeled effect
Service-base space scarcityReal estate and site feasibility
Madison BESP creates threshold-based compliance burden for large commercial facilities and recurring retrofit-service demand2 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Building Energy Savings Program coverage and tune-up thresholds: annual benchmarking minimum nonresidential commercial sqft: 25,000; four year tuneup minimum nonresidential commercial sqft: 50,000; first tuneup year over 100000 sqft: 2,026; first tuneup year 50000 to 99999 sqft: 2,027 sqft and year [14]
- BESP tune-up process includes energy-system assessment and implementation of required corrective actions: systems examples: lighting, HVAC controls; tuneup specialist may be: qualified on site staff or contracted service provider; required corrective actions: must be implemented and verified process requirements [15]
Facility compliance burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Energy-retrofit service demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
State Street imposes time-window and vehicle-class limits on deliveries and service access1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, 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 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.9
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +1.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.5 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +1.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.92 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 | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.5 |
| 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 | 71.92 |
| 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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +1.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#4
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.4
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +1.4 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 |
| +1.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.38 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | +1.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.38 |
| 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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#3
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.3
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.29 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 | +1.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 71.29 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#6
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +1.2 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.1 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +1.2 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.1 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +1.1 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.00 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 | +1.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.1 |
| 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 | 71.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.0 |
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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#10
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.6 pts | |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.76 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.5 |
| 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 | 70.76 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#9
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.39 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 | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.39 |
| 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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#9
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.28 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 | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.28 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#10
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.9 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.1 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.9 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
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 | +1.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.21 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#11
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.8 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.0 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.18 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 | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.8 |
| 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 | 70.18 |
| 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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#10
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.7 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.07 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 | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.07 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#12
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.2 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.2 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.29 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.2 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.71 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#11
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.2 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.2 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.57 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 | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.2 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.43 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.4 |
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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.6
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.1 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.1 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -1.44 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.1 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.56 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #13–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.4
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.1 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.1 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.56 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.1 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.44 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #13–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated Mister Sparky Electric
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 | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.5 |
| 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 | 71.92 |
| 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 effectPositive local support
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. Tiger Adjusters moved from #7 to #3, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected+0.9 pts
Average across all concepts+0.9 pts
Concepts changing rank7
What we observed
- Population Change From The April 2020 Estimate Base To July 20254.2 percent
- New Homes Completed From 2015 Through 2024new homes: 22,472; increase relative to prior housing stock: 20 homes and percent
- Uw–madison Enrollment And Faculty/staff Scaleenrollment: 51,822; faculty and staff: 28,017; main campus acres: 939; budget 2024 25 usd billions: 4.95 people acres usd billions
Concepts helped most
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.6 pts
City WideFacility management
+1.5 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+1.4 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.1 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+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 2 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #4 to #10, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted2 of 14
Average among affected+1.3 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank10
Concepts helped most
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+1.5 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+1.2 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 10 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. Workout Anytime moved from #10 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted10 of 14
Average among affected-0.3 pts
Average across all concepts-0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank7
What we observed
- Madison Msa Unemployment Rate In June 20263 percent
- Mean Hourly Wage And Selected Occupational Group Wages In Madison Msaall occupations madison: 34.13; all occupations us: 33.54; management: 69.94; computer and mathematical: 51.49; food preparation and serving: 16.84; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: 20.46 usd per hour
Concepts challenged most
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-0.9 pts
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.7 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-0.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.4 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
-0.3 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Real estate and site feasibility
We applied site and operating-base constraints only to concepts requiring comparable storefront, production, warehouse, or fleet space.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #11 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected-0.9 pts
Average across all concepts-0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank11
What we observed
- Office Service / Flex Inventory And Vacancy In Cushman & Wakefield's Q2 2026 Madison Industrial Tableinventory sqft: 10,746,799; vacant sqft: 424,017; vacancy rate: 3.9; weighted average net rent psf: 8.43 sqft percent usd per sqft
- Speculative Share Of The Active Q2 2026 Industrial Construction Pipelinetotal under construction sqft approximate: 4,000,000; active pipeline speculative sqft: 27,773; market outlook: vacancy expected to remain constrained through remainder of 2026 sqft and text
- Flex/r&d Vacancy In Oakbrook's Q2 2026 Madison Area Industrial Analysis2.6 percent
Concepts challenged most
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-1.2 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.2 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-1.1 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.1 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-1.1 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Referral ecosystemNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 Mister Sparky ElectricModerately sensitive · tested #1–#4
#2 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsModerately sensitive · tested #1–#3
#3 City WideHighly sensitive · tested #2–#6
#4 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #2–#10
#5 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #3–#9
#6 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #5–#9
#7 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #4–#10
#8 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #5–#11
#9 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #6–#10
#10 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #7–#12
#11 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #7–#11
#12 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #8–#12
#13 Rainbow International RestorationStable · tested #13–#14
#14 PuroCleanStable · tested #13–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [14] [15] [5] [1]Competitive environment: [25] [26] [4] [8]Labor and staffing friction: [9] [10] [2] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [16] [17] [18] [3] [5]Real estate and site feasibility: [11] [12] [13] [19] [20] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [22] [23] [24] [8] [25] [26]Referral ecosystem: [8] [22] [23] [25] [9]Territory quality: [12] [13] [5] [18] [20] [21] [16]Regulatory and operating friction: [14] [15] [19] [20] [21] [26] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Real estate and site feasibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.9 pts | +1.5 pts | — | -0.5 pts |
| #2 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +1.4 pts | — | — | — |
| #3 City Wide | +1.5 pts | — | -0.2 pts | — |
| #4 Aire Serv | +1.1 pts | +1.2 pts | -0.1 pts | -1.1 pts |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +1.6 pts | — | -0.3 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #6 ActionCOACH | +0.5 pts | — | -0.1 pts | — |
| #7 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | — | -0.1 pts | — |
| #8 Jan-Pro International | +1.1 pts | — | -0.9 pts | — |
| #9 Mr. Rooter | +1.0 pts | — | — | -0.8 pts |
| #10 Workout Anytime | +0.7 pts | — | -0.7 pts | — |
| #11 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.9 pts | — | — | -1.2 pts |
| #12 FASTSIGNS | +0.7 pts | — | -0.1 pts | -1.2 pts |
| #13 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.2 pts | — | -0.5 pts | -1.1 pts |
| #14 PuroClean | — | — | -0.4 pts | -1.1 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
Mister Sparky Electric, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, City Wide led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to real estate and site feasibility. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for City Wide, Aire Serv, HomeSmiles; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Madison, Wisconsin
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
68.5Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Madison, Wisconsin
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 68.4 to 68.6. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 68.6. Target-market demand added 0.1 points on average among the affected concepts. Real estate and site feasibility reduced the exposed concepts by 1.1 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.1-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 68.4–68.6
- Category average
- 68.5
Rainbow International Restoration68.6
PuroClean68.4
Metric registry
The 28 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 | 286,233people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived household and housing measures | Madison, Wisconsin | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 4.2percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived household and housing measures | Madison, Wisconsin | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Households in the 2020-2024 QuickFacts period | 128,261households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived household and housing measures | Madison, Wisconsin | Context only | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate | 46percent of occupied housing units | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived household and housing measures | Madison, Wisconsin | Context only | [4] |
| New homes completed from 2015 through 2024 | new homes: 22,472; increase relative to prior housing stock: 20homes and percent | Housing completions from 2015 through 2024 | Madison, Wisconsin | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Share of 2015-2024 new homes in transit-oriented and infill geographies | transit oriented development overlay including downtown: 45; other infill areas: 10; downtown share of all new homes: 17percent of new homes | Housing completions from 2015 through 2024 | Madison transit-oriented, infill, Downtown and Isthmus areas | Context only | [5] |
| City projection for net household and population growth from beginning-of-2025 conditions through 2030 | beginning 2025 homes approximate: 134,800; additional households by 2030 more than: 9,300; additional people by 2030 approximate: 18,400homes households people | Beginning-of-2025 housing stock and City growth projection through 2030 | Madison, Wisconsin | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Rental and owner-occupied vacancy rates reported in the 2025 Housing Snapshot | rental vacancy rate: 4.8; owner occupied vacancy rate: 0.6percent | 2025 Housing Snapshot metrics | Madison, Wisconsin | Context only | [7] |
| Median gross rent and median monthly owner cost with a mortgage | median gross rent: 1,413; median owner cost with mortgage: 2,098usd per month | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived household and housing measures | Madison, Wisconsin | Context only | [4] [7] |
| UW–Madison enrollment and faculty/staff scale | enrollment: 51,822; faculty and staff: 28,017; main campus acres: 939; budget 2024 25 usd billions: 4.95people acres usd billions | Fall 2025 enrollment and faculty/staff; 2024-25 budget | University of Wisconsin–Madison | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Government nonfarm employment in June 2026 | 90,000jobs | January through June 2026 labor force and nonfarm employment | Madison, WI MSA | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Madison MSA unemployment rate in June 2026 | 3percent | January through June 2026 labor force and nonfarm employment | Madison, WI MSA | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Mean hourly wage and selected occupational-group wages in Madison MSA | all occupations madison: 34.13; all occupations us: 33.54; management: 69.94; computer and mathematical: 51.49; food preparation and serving: 16.84; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: 20.46usd per hour | May 2025 | Madison, WI MSA | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Office Service / Flex inventory and vacancy in Cushman & Wakefield's Q2 2026 Madison industrial table | inventory sqft: 10,746,799; vacant sqft: 424,017; vacancy rate: 3.9; weighted average net rent psf: 8.43sqft percent usd per sqft | Q2 2026 | Madison-area industrial market tracked by Cushman & Wakefield | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Speculative share of the active Q2 2026 industrial construction pipeline | total under construction sqft approximate: 4,000,000; active pipeline speculative sqft: 27,773; market outlook: vacancy expected to remain constrained through remainder of 2026sqft and text | Q2 2026 | Madison-area industrial market tracked by Cushman & Wakefield | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Flex/R&D vacancy in Oakbrook's Q2 2026 Madison-area industrial analysis | 2.6percent | Q2 2026 | Dane County / Madison-area industrial market | Used in scoring | [12] |
| Industrial vacancy by Madison-area submarket in Oakbrook's Q2 2026 analysis | southeast: 0.9; east: 2.5; northeast: 2.2; northwest: 3.5; west: 5.9; southwest: 2.2; central: 24.8percent | Q2 2026 | Madison-area industrial submarkets | Conditional relationship | [12] |
| Q2 2026 vacancy rates across Madison office, industrial, and retail sectors | office: 16.3; industrial: 3.3; retail: 5.6percent | Q2 2026 | Madison commercial real-estate market | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| Building Energy Savings Program coverage and tune-up thresholds | annual benchmarking minimum nonresidential commercial sqft: 25,000; four year tuneup minimum nonresidential commercial sqft: 50,000; first tuneup year over 100000 sqft: 2,026; first tuneup year 50000 to 99999 sqft: 2,027sqft and year | Program adopted March 2023; requirements and 2026 deadlines current as accessed August 2026 | City of Madison covered commercial buildings | Supports modeled relationship | [14] |
| BESP tune-up process includes energy-system assessment and implementation of required corrective actions | systems examples: lighting, HVAC controls; tuneup specialist may be: qualified on site staff or contracted service provider; required corrective actions: must be implemented and verifiedprocess requirements | Current tune-up requirements and 2026-2027 first compliance deadlines | City of Madison covered commercial buildings at or above tune-up threshold | Supports modeled relationship | [15] |
| Recurring alternate-side winter parking framework | season: November 15-March 15; overnight hours: 1:00 a.m.-7:00 a.m.; mechanism: park on date-specific side of streetrule | Recurring winter parking framework; current page accessed August 2026 | City of Madison, subject to Snow Emergency Zone distinctions and current-season enforcement policy | Conditional relationship | [16] [17] |
| State Street truck stopping, standing, parking, delivery, and access restrictions | motor truck no stop window: 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m.; days per week: 7; active loading limit minutes: 30; entry exit rule: use nearest intersecting street to destination; staging allowed: norule | City-hosted current guide accessed August 2026; guide dated March 2, 2016 | State Street, Madison | Conditional relationship | [18] [3] |
| Sign standards vary by zoning district and govern dimensions, placement, type, and illumination | regulated characteristics: number, size, height, location, type, illumination; pre order zoning check recommended: yes; permit required for applicable signs: yesregulatory dimensions | Current sign-permit process accessed August 2026 | City of Madison zoning districts | Conditional relationship | [19] [3] |
| Urban Design Commission and Landmarks Commission review is triggered by specified project types or locations | udc examples: Urban Design District, Planned Development, Downtown Core, Urban Mixed Use, sign exceptions, Comprehensive Design Review; local historic district count: 5; historic district exterior changes reviewed by landmarks commission: yesreview triggers | Current design-review process accessed August 2026 | Madison properties subject to UDC or local historic-district review | Conditional relationship | [20] [21] [3] |
| City of Madison competitive purchasing thresholds | under 25000: best value judgment; 25000 to 75000: minimum three vendor quotes; 75000 and up: formal sealed bids or proposals; services rfp typical threshold usd: 50,000usd thresholds and method | Current procurement thresholds and methods accessed August 2026 | City of Madison agency procurement | Conditional relationship | [22] |
| UW–Madison uses centralized purchasing functions and is subject to public purchasing rules | centralized contracting: yes; vendor university relationships promoted: yes; state purchasing statutes and rules apply: yes; competitive process may be required: depending on purchase method and amountprocess characteristics | Current procurement structure accessed August 2026 | University of Wisconsin–Madison | Conditional relationship | [23] [24] |
| Employer establishments in Dane County in 2023 County Business Patterns | 14,765employer establishments | 2023 County Business Patterns | Dane County, Wisconsin | Context only | [25] |
| City of Madison does not maintain a generic business license covering all businesses | yesboolean | Current licensing guidance accessed August 2026 | Madison, Wisconsin | Context only | [26] |
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, Mister Sparky Electric reached 71.92 after property replacement-cycle demand +1.5 pts, target-market demand +0.9 pts, and real estate and site feasibility -0.5 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.
- 1Utility Delta Market Audit: Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric CRE OpportunitiesInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Structural Capital Friction and Municipal Extraction Mechanisms: A Forensic Audit of Ten U.S. JurisdictionsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - des.csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: State Street truck stopping, standing, parking, delivery, and access restrictions, Sign standards vary by zoning district and govern dimensions, placement, type, and illumination, and Urban Design Commission and Landmarks Commission review is triggered by specified project types or locations
- 4QuickFacts: Madison city, Wisconsin
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households in the 2020-2024 QuickFacts period, Owner-occupied housing unit rate, and Median gross rent and median monthly owner cost with a mortgage
- 5New Housing Construction — 2025 Housing Snapshot
Used for: New homes completed from 2015 through 2024 and Share of 2015-2024 new homes in transit-oriented and infill geographies
- 6City of Madison Housing Tracker
Used for: City projection for net household and population growth from beginning-of-2025 conditions through 2030
- 72025 Housing Snapshot report published
Used for: Rental and owner-occupied vacancy rates reported in the 2025 Housing Snapshot and Median gross rent and median monthly owner cost with a mortgage
- 8Facts
Used for: UW–Madison enrollment and faculty/staff scale
- 9Madison, WI Economy at a Glance
Used for: Government nonfarm employment in June 2026 and Madison MSA unemployment rate in June 2026
- 10Occupational Employment and Wages in Madison — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wage and selected occupational-group wages in Madison MSA
- 11Madison Industrial MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Office Service / Flex inventory and vacancy in Cushman & Wakefield's Q2 2026 Madison industrial table and Speculative share of the active Q2 2026 industrial construction pipeline
- 12Madison Industrial Market Update Q2 2026: Vacancy Falls to 3.3%
Used for: Flex/R&D vacancy in Oakbrook's Q2 2026 Madison-area industrial analysis and Industrial vacancy by Madison-area submarket in Oakbrook's Q2 2026 analysis
- 132026 Q2 Southeast Wisconsin & Madison Commercial Market Numbers
Used for: Q2 2026 vacancy rates across Madison office, industrial, and retail sectors
- 14Building Energy Savings Program
Used for: Building Energy Savings Program coverage and tune-up thresholds
- 15Building Tune-ups
Used for: BESP tune-up process includes energy-system assessment and implementation of required corrective actions
- 16Winter Parking Rules
Used for: Recurring alternate-side winter parking framework
- 17Declared Snow Emergencies
Used for: Recurring alternate-side winter parking framework
- 18State Street Parking Guide
Used for: State Street truck stopping, standing, parking, delivery, and access restrictions
- 19Sign Permits
Used for: Sign standards vary by zoning district and govern dimensions, placement, type, and illumination
- 20Urban Design Approvals
Used for: Urban Design Commission and Landmarks Commission review is triggered by specified project types or locations
- 21Local Historic Districts
Used for: Urban Design Commission and Landmarks Commission review is triggered by specified project types or locations
- 22Bid Opportunities & Competition
Used for: City of Madison competitive purchasing thresholds
- 23Purchasing Services
Used for: UW–Madison uses centralized purchasing functions and is subject to public purchasing rules
- 24How to Make a Purchase
Used for: UW–Madison uses centralized purchasing functions and is subject to public purchasing rules
- 25Dane County, Wisconsin Profile — Business and Economy / County Business Patterns
Used for: Employer establishments in Dane County in 2023 County Business Patterns
- 26Opening a Business in Madison
Used for: City of Madison does not maintain a generic business license covering all businesses
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.