69.9 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Reno, Nevada
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Reno, Nevada. Household service demand was a leading positive mechanism. Skilled-trade labor competition 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
20Local sources used
20Local 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
1 point average reduction among 10 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 9 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Reno, Nevada
City Wide, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, and Jan-Pro International 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. Skilled-trade labor competition was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 1 point on average. Mister Sparky Electric was especially relationship-sensitive: removing skilled-trade labor competition moved it from #11 to #6 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 | 71.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.7 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 71.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.7 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.7 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.7 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 69.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.8 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 69.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Reno, Nevada
Recent population growth and completed housing additions expand the addressable residential service base
This relationship affected 8 concepts and added 0.9 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Estimated households in the 2020-2024 period: 114,322 households. [4]
Trade-oriented occupations are more concentrated in the Reno MSA and carry modest local wage premiums in key groups
This relationship affected 10 concepts and reduced 1 point on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Reno MSA employment shares and mean hourly wages in trade-oriented major occupation groups versus the United States: construction and extraction: reno employment share percent: 6.7, us employment share percent: 4.1, reno mean hourly wage usd: 32.48, us mean hourly wage usd: 31.42; installation maintenance and repair: reno employment share percent: 4.5, us employment share percent: 3.9, reno mean hourly wage usd: 31.26, us mean hourly wage usd: 30.44; all occupations: reno mean hourly wage usd: 31.02, us mean hourly wage usd: 33.54 percent and usd per hour. [6]
commercial_space_size_mismatch
The headline industrial vacancy is heavily influenced by warehouse/distribution and large-building supply. The source reports FLEX vacancy at 6.9 percent with $1.14 per square foot monthly NNN asking rent versus $0.84 overall, while buildings above 100,000 square feet drove a large share of absorption. Therefore the 13.0 percent headline does not establish easy availability of small service-base space, and exact small-bay inventory remains a diligence item. [7] [1]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Recent population growth and completed housing additions expand the addressable residential service base1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
Large Reno healthcare institution base supports institutional facility-service demand1 modeled effect
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
University of Nevada, Reno creates a large institutional account base and professional network2 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- University of Nevada, Reno enrollment and off-campus/commuter share: total students: 24,061; undergraduates: 20,204; graduate students: 3,857; undergraduates off campus or commute percent: 77 students and percent [14]
- University of Nevada, Reno employee census on November 1, 2025: academic faculty: 1,059; administrative faculty: 1,408; other employee types: 5,733; employee total: 8,200 employees [15]
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Institutional professional relationship baseReferral ecosystem
Trade-oriented occupations are more concentrated in the Reno MSA and carry modest local wage premiums in key groups1 modeled effect
Skilled-trade labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
Active Military Road construction creates a temporary North Valleys route disruption1 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Tight retail vacancy and rising asking rents increase fixed-location occupancy pressure1 modeled effect
Fixed-location occupancy cost pressureReal estate and site feasibility
Reno climate combines frequent freezing minima with substantial warm-season heat, supporting thermal-weatherization exposure1 local fact · 2 modeled effects · 1 source
- Reno-Tahoe International Airport annual temperature and freeze-day exposure in 2025: highest temperature f: 104; lowest temperature f: 10; days max ge 90 f: 69; normal days max ge 90 f: 65.1; days min le 32 f: 96; normal days min le 32 f: 121.9; heating degree days: 4,105; cooling degree days: 1,198 temperature f days and degree days [12]
Freeze-thaw repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Winter route frictionTransportation, 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 alignment71.7
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.7 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 | +1.7 pts | |
| Net local movement | +1.68 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.7 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 71.68 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#3
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.3
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +1.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.33 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| 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 | 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 | 71.33 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#4
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.2
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.2 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.2 pts | |
| Net local movement | +1.22 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 | +1.2 |
| 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 | 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 | 71.22 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#5
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.7 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 | +1.7 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.03 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 | +1.7 |
| 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 | 71.03 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#8
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.29 |
| 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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#12
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 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 |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | 0.00 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
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| 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 | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#11
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.7 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand | +0.2 pts | |
| Net local movement | -0.01 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| 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 | 69.99 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#9
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +1.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.7 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.7 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +1.1 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.02 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.7 |
| 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 | 69.98 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#10
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.8 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.71 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#13
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.7 pts | |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.45 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | 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 | -0.6 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 69.55 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#13
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.7 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.7 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.63 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.7 |
| 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 | 69.37 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#14
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +1.0 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.64 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 | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.36 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#14
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.3
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.4 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 |
| -1.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.68 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.7 |
| 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 | -1.4 |
| 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 | 69.32 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.3
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.70 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.30 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#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 | +1.7 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 71.68 |
| 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.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectPositive local support
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. HomeSmiles moved from #4 to #8, 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 rank12
What we observed
- Population Change From The April 2020 Estimate Base To July 20257.4 percent
- Estimated Households In The 2020 2024 Period114,322 households
- Residential Units Receiving Certificates Of Occupancy In City Of Reno Fy 2025 2026single family units: 480; multifamily units: 1,059; total units: 1,539 housing units
Concepts helped most
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.7 pts
City WideFacility management
+1.7 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+1.4 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.2 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 5 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. PuroClean moved from #9 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted5 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank10
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.5 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.5 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.3 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.2 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 10 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 14 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #8 to #1, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted10 of 14
Average among affected-1.0 pts
Average across all concepts-0.7 pts
Concepts changing rank14
What we observed
- Reno Msa Employment Shares And Mean Hourly Wages In Trade Oriented Major Occupation Groups Versus The United Statesconstruction and extraction: reno employment share percent: 6.7, us employment share percent: 4.1, reno mean hourly wage usd: 32.48, us mean hourly wage usd: 31.42; installation maintenance and repair: reno employment share percent: 4.5, us employment share percent: 3.9, reno mean hourly wage usd: 31.26, us mean hourly wage usd: 30.44; all occupations: reno mean hourly wage usd: 31.02, us mean hourly wage usd: 33.54 percent and usd per hour
Concepts challenged most
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-1.7 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-1.7 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-1.6 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.8 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
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 2 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 9 concepts changed position. Workout Anytime moved from #13 to #5, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted2 of 14
Average among affected-1.0 pts
Average across all concepts-0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank9
What we observed
- Reno Retail Vacancy And Asking Rent In Q2 2026vacancy percent: 3.9; average asking rent usd psf month: 1.57; asking rent year over year change percent: 4.5; under construction sqft: 55,847; q2 net absorption sqft: -125,465; ytd net absorption sqft: 1,974 percent usd psf month and sqft
- Reno Industrial Market Overall Vacancy And Asking Rent In Q2 2026overall vacancy percent: 13; overall nnn asking rent usd psf month: 0.84; inventory sqft: 129,802,233 percent usd psf month and sqft
- Cushman & Wakefield Flex Segment Vacancy, Asking Rent And Inventory In Q2 2026flex vacancy percent: 6.9; flex nnn asking rent usd psf month: 1.14; flex inventory sqft: 6,122,296; ytd net absorption sqft: -29,301; ytd leasing activity sqft: 225,282; definition note: FLEX is defined by the source as High Technology/Office Services and is not identical to small-bay service space. percent usd psf month and sqft
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-1.4 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-0.6 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
0.0 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 City WideModerately sensitive · tested #1–#3
#2 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsModerately sensitive · tested #2–#4
#3 Jan-Pro InternationalModerately sensitive · tested #2–#5
#4 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #1–#8
#5 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #3–#12
#6 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #6–#11
#7 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #5–#9
#8 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #2–#10
#9 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #6–#13
#10 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #7–#13
#11 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #6–#14
#12 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #7–#14
#13 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #5–#14
#14 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #8–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Score-changing factors
Factors that changed the calculated scores
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [5] [16] [17] [14] [15] [1] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [12] [1] [5]Competitive environment: [20] [4] [1] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [6] [7] [15] [16] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [13] [12] [3] [1]Real estate and site feasibility: [7] [8] [10] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [18] [19] [20] [3]Referral ecosystem: [14] [15] [16] [17] [3]Territory quality: [7] [13] [4] [14] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [11] [9] [10] [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 City Wide | +1.7 pts | — | — | — |
| #2 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +1.4 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.3 pts | — |
| #3 Jan-Pro International | +1.2 pts | — | — | — |
| #4 HomeSmiles | +1.7 pts | — | -0.7 pts | — |
| #5 ActionCOACH | +0.3 pts | — | — | — |
| #6 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | — | -0.3 pts | — |
| #7 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.2 pts | +0.5 pts | -0.7 pts | — |
| #8 Aire Serv | +1.1 pts | +0.6 pts | -1.7 pts | — |
| #9 PuroClean | — | +0.5 pts | -0.8 pts | — |
| #10 FASTSIGNS | +0.7 pts | — | -0.5 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #11 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.9 pts | +0.2 pts | -1.7 pts | — |
| #12 Mr. Rooter | +1.0 pts | — | -1.6 pts | — |
| #13 Workout Anytime | +0.7 pts | — | — | -1.4 pts |
| #14 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.9 pts | — | -1.6 pts | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Jan-Pro International led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to labor and staffing friction. 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 HomeSmiles, ActionCOACH, Tiger Adjusters; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Reno, Nevada
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.9Limited comparison: Restoration franchise opportunities assessed in Reno, Nevada
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.7 to 70.0. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.0. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.5 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.8 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
- 69.7–70.0
- Category average
- 69.9
Rainbow International Restoration70.0
PuroClean69.7
Metric registry
The 20 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 | 283,621people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-based household/housing/income measures; 2022 economic receipts | Reno, Nevada | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 7.4percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-based household/housing/income measures; 2022 economic receipts | Reno, Nevada | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Estimated households in the 2020-2024 period | 114,322households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-based household/housing/income measures; 2022 economic receipts | Reno, Nevada | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Residential units receiving Certificates of Occupancy in City of Reno FY 2025-2026 | single family units: 480; multifamily units: 1,059; total units: 1,539housing units | Fiscal year July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026 | Reno, Nevada | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue reported for Reno in 2022 | 4,030,933thousand usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-based household/housing/income measures; 2022 economic receipts | Reno, Nevada | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Renown Health reports a workforce of more than 8,000 employees and an integrated network spanning hospitals, medical group, urgent care and insurance | employees minimum: 8,000; network components: trauma center, two acute care hospitals, childrens hospital, rehabilitation hospital, medical group and urgent care network, health planorganization scale | Current organizational facts accessed August 10, 2026 | Renown Health network headquartered in Reno | Used in scoring | [16] |
| Renown Regional Medical Center reports more than 80,000 emergency-room and trauma patients per year | 80,000patients per year minimum | Current facility facts accessed August 10, 2026 | Renown Regional Medical Center, Reno, Nevada | Used in scoring | [17] |
| University of Nevada, Reno enrollment and off-campus/commuter share | total students: 24,061; undergraduates: 20,204; graduate students: 3,857; undergraduates off campus or commute percent: 77students and percent | Academic year 2025-2026 | University of Nevada, Reno | Supports modeled relationship | [14] |
| University of Nevada, Reno employee census on November 1, 2025 | academic faculty: 1,059; administrative faculty: 1,408; other employee types: 5,733; employee total: 8,200employees | Worker census conducted November 1, 2025 | University of Nevada, Reno | Supports modeled relationship | [15] |
| Reno MSA employment shares and mean hourly wages in trade-oriented major occupation groups versus the United States | construction and extraction: reno employment share percent: 6.7, us employment share percent: 4.1, reno mean hourly wage usd: 32.48, us mean hourly wage usd: 31.42; installation maintenance and repair: reno employment share percent: 4.5, us employment share percent: 3.9, reno mean hourly wage usd: 31.26, us mean hourly wage usd: 30.44; all occupations: reno mean hourly wage usd: 31.02, us mean hourly wage usd: 33.54percent and usd per hour | May 2025 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics; release reissued June 24, 2026 for sample-size/response-rate corrections | Reno, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Reno industrial market overall vacancy and asking rent in Q2 2026 | overall vacancy percent: 13; overall nnn asking rent usd psf month: 0.84; inventory sqft: 129,802,233percent usd psf month and sqft | Second quarter 2026 | Reno industrial market | Conditional relationship | [7] |
| Cushman & Wakefield FLEX segment vacancy, asking rent and inventory in Q2 2026 | flex vacancy percent: 6.9; flex nnn asking rent usd psf month: 1.14; flex inventory sqft: 6,122,296; ytd net absorption sqft: -29,301; ytd leasing activity sqft: 225,282; definition note: FLEX is defined by the source as High Technology/Office Services and is not identical to small-bay service space.percent usd psf month and sqft | Second quarter 2026 | Reno industrial market FLEX segment | Conditional relationship | [7] |
| Industrial vacancy varies materially across Reno-area submarkets in Q2 2026 | Central Reno percent: 1.9; South Reno percent: 7.8; West Reno percent: 9.3; Airport percent: 11.7; North Valleys percent: 17.9; Sparks percent: 12.8; Storey County percent: 12.9vacancy percent | Second quarter 2026 | Reno industrial submarkets and adjacent regional submarkets | Conditional relationship | [7] |
| Reno retail vacancy and asking rent in Q2 2026 | vacancy percent: 3.9; average asking rent usd psf month: 1.57; asking rent year over year change percent: 4.5; under construction sqft: 55,847; q2 net absorption sqft: -125,465; ytd net absorption sqft: 1,974percent usd psf month and sqft | Second quarter 2026; source notes identify CoStar as underlying data source | Reno retail market | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Reno-Tahoe International Airport annual temperature and freeze-day exposure in 2025 | highest temperature f: 104; lowest temperature f: 10; days max ge 90 f: 69; normal days max ge 90 f: 65.1; days min le 32 f: 96; normal days min le 32 f: 121.9; heating degree days: 4,105; cooling degree days: 1,198temperature f days and degree days | Calendar year 2025; 1991-2020 climate normal period | Reno-Tahoe International Airport, Reno, Nevada | Supports modeled relationship | [12] |
| Military Road Capacity and Safety Project construction conditions in Reno North Valleys | construction start: 2026-06-15; expected completion: fall 2027; segment: Military Road between Lemmon Drive and Lear Boulevard; during construction: one lane maintained in each direction with 24/7 lane shifts during stated phasesproject conditions | Construction beginning June 15, 2026; completion expected fall 2027 | Military Road, Reno North Valleys | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| City Register historic properties may require a Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior changes including advertising signs | covered property condition: property listed on City of Reno Register of Historic Places; examples of exterior changes: masonry walls, fences, light fixtures, steps, pavement, advertising signs; city guidance note: The City states that the vast majority of COAs are approved.regulatory condition | Current historic-preservation guidance accessed August 10, 2026 | City of Reno Register of Historic Places properties | Conditional relationship | [11] [3] |
| Current 8th Edition Regional Road Impact Fee schedule for selected commercial land uses | effective date: 2026-07-09; commercial retail or eating drinking usd per 1000 gfa: north service area: 8,308.12, south service area: 7,604.23; general light industrial usd per 1000 gfa: north service area: 1,830.9, south service area: 1,676.67; warehouse usd per 1000 gfa: north service area: 644.53, south service area: 588.17; medical office usd per 1000 gfa: north service area: 13,542.31, south service area: 12,397.45usd per 1000 gross floor area | 8th Edition adopted June 10, 2026; fee schedule effective July 9, 2026 | RRIF North and South Service Areas applicable to participating Washoe County jurisdictions including Reno | Context only | [9] [10] |
| City of Reno requires vendor registration in PlanetBids to view and bid on construction and non-construction opportunities and accepts bids/RFQs/RFPs through its online portal | vendor registration required: yes; online submission required: yes; platform: PlanetBidsprocurement process | Current procurement workflow accessed August 10, 2026 | City of Reno procurement | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| University of Nevada, Reno purchasing procedure imposes approval and quotation/bid requirements above specified purchase values | purchase order threshold usd: 5,000; two or more vendor quotes threshold usd: 25,000; formal bid proposal threshold usd: 50,000; capital construction bid threshold usd: 100,000usd thresholds | Procedure revised December 2021 and current when accessed August 10, 2026 | University of Nevada, Reno purchasing | Conditional relationship | [19] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects 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 71.68 after target-market demand +1.7 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Reports are checked for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability before publication.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Local evidence supporting this report
The city page keeps the local sources used for its visible findings and metrics. Franchise-source provenance stays with the underlying franchise research rather than being duplicated across every city page.
- 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: City Register historic properties may require a Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior changes including advertising signs
- 4QuickFacts: Reno city, Nevada
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Estimated households in the 2020-2024 period, and Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue reported for Reno in 2022
- 5Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Development Data
Used for: Residential units receiving Certificates of Occupancy in City of Reno FY 2025-2026
- 6Occupational Employment and Wages in Reno — May 2025
Used for: Reno MSA employment shares and mean hourly wages in trade-oriented major occupation groups versus the United States
- 7Reno Industrial MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Reno industrial market overall vacancy and asking rent in Q2 2026, Cushman & Wakefield FLEX segment vacancy, asking rent and inventory in Q2 2026, and Industrial vacancy varies materially across Reno-area submarkets in Q2 2026
- 8Reno Retail Market Report | Q2 2026
Used for: Reno retail vacancy and asking rent in Q2 2026
- 9Regional Road Impact Fee (RRIF) Program
Used for: Current 8th Edition Regional Road Impact Fee schedule for selected commercial land uses
- 10Regional Road Impact Fee Schedule — 8th Edition
Used for: Current 8th Edition Regional Road Impact Fee schedule for selected commercial land uses
- 11Historic Preservation FAQ
Used for: City Register historic properties may require a Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior changes including advertising signs
- 12Reno-Tahoe International Airport NV Climate Summary for the Year of 2025
Used for: Reno-Tahoe International Airport annual temperature and freeze-day exposure in 2025
- 13Construction begins June 15 on Military Road Capacity and Safety Project
Used for: Military Road Capacity and Safety Project construction conditions in Reno North Valleys
- 142025-2026 Common Data Set
Used for: University of Nevada, Reno enrollment and off-campus/commuter share
- 15Employee and volunteer counts by year
Used for: University of Nevada, Reno employee census on November 1, 2025
- 16About Renown Health
Used for: Renown Health reports a workforce of more than 8,000 employees and an integrated network spanning hospitals, medical group, urgent care and insurance
- 17Renown Regional Medical Center
Used for: Renown Regional Medical Center reports more than 80,000 emergency-room and trauma patients per year
- 18Bids, RFPs, RFQs
Used for: City of Reno requires vendor registration in PlanetBids to view and bid on construction and non-construction opportunities and accepts bids/RFQs/RFPs through its online portal
- 191,507: Basic Purchasing Procedure
Used for: University of Nevada, Reno purchasing procedure imposes approval and quotation/bid requirements above specified purchase values
- 20
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.