70.3 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Boise, Idaho
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Boise, Idaho. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Broad labor 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
19Sources used
12Primary sources
25Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
1.3 points average among 11 affected concepts
0.3 points average reduction among 9 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 9 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Boise, Idaho
City Wide, HomeSmiles, and ActionCOACH produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Local business demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 10 exposed concepts, adding 0.9 points on average. Broad labor scarcity was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.3 points on average. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing local business demand moved it from #1 to #8 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 72.3Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +1.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 72.1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +1.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 72.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 71.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 71.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 71.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.7 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Boise, Idaho
Large core-county business base and metro employment support broad local B2B demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 0.9 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Ada County employer establishment and employment base: employer establishments: 17,028; employment: 243,004; annual payroll thousand usd: 16,111,298; nonemployer establishments: 49,567 counts and thousand usd. [5] [4]
Low metro unemployment raises broad recruiting pressure for labor-dependent operations
This relationship affected 10 concepts and reduced 0.3 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Boise City metro total nonfarm employment and over-the-year change in June 2026: total nonfarm jobs thousands: 420.1; over year job change thousands: 5.1; over year change percent: 1.2 thousands of jobs and percent. [8]
Boise city population increased 1.1 percent from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, while Ada County increased 10.3 percent over the same interval.
Regional 'Boise' growth narratives often describe a larger Ada County or Treasure Valley geography. The official city population increase is much slower than the core county increase, while Boise continues to add housing and participate in a much larger regional business and labor market. Fixed-location demand should therefore be tested at the city trade-area level, while route and B2B models may access broader county or metro growth when their actual territory reaches it. [4] [5] [6] [9] [1]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large core-county business base and metro employment support broad local B2B demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Recent net housing additions and continued city housing need support household-service demand1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
Professional, education, health, government, and university activity create a substantial potential referral and account base1 modeled effect
Professional and institutional relationship densityReferral ecosystem
Active State Street and Pierce Park Lane work zone restricts turning movements and alters traffic through a specific corridor1 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.3
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 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 |
| +1.9 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.34 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.9 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.34 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#3
#2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.1
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.9 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 | +1.9 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.12 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 | +1.9 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.12 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#9
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment72.0
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +1.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 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 |
| +1.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.97 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 | +1.6 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.97 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#4
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.9
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +1.8 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 |
| +1.8 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.93 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.8 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.2 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.93 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#10
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.7
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +1.1 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.1 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.72 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.72 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#6
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.4
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.0 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 | +1.40 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.40 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#8
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.4
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +1.2 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.2 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#11
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.3
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +1.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 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 | +1.1 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.35 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 | +0.3 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.35 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#9
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.2
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
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 |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.17 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 | +1.7 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.1 |
| 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 | 71.17 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#14
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.7 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 |
| +0.7 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 | +1.02 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 | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.02 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#10
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 pts | |
| Net local movement | +0.46 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.46 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#13
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -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 |
|---|---|---|
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 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 | +0.34 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.34 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 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 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 | +0.3 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.48 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 | Effect below the publication threshold |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.52 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #13–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.9 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.34 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.3 |
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 11 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 13 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #4 to #11, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted11 of 14
Average among affected+1.3 pts
Average across all concepts+1.0 pts
Concepts changing rank13
What we observed
- Households And Owner Occupied Housing Ratehouseholds: 101,178; owner occupied housing rate percent: 63.2 households and percent
- Boise City Retail Sales And Selected Service Sector Receiptsretail sales thousand usd: 7,762,813; health care and social assistance receipts thousand usd: 4,576,745; transportation and warehousing receipts thousand usd: 965,682
- Ada County Employer Establishment And Employment Baseemployer establishments: 17,028; employment: 243,004; annual payroll thousand usd: 16,111,298; nonemployer establishments: 49,567 counts and thousand usd
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.9 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.9 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+1.8 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.7 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+1.6 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. Mr. Rooter moved from #6 to #8, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.3 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank6
What we observed
- Completed Housing Construction And Demolition In Boise From 2018 Through 2023new units constructed: 7,879; units demolished: 411; net units added: 7,468 housing units
- City Housing Need Forecast Through 2033total housing need: 20,194; new units needed: 15,512; rehab or replacement existing units: 4,682; rehab replacement share percent: 23 housing units and percent
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.4 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.3 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.3 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.3 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.3 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 9 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #9 to #5, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted9 of 14
Average among affected-0.3 pts
Average across all concepts-0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank7
What we observed
- Boise City Metro Total Nonfarm Employment And Over The Year Change In June 2026total nonfarm jobs thousands: 420.1; over year job change thousands: 5.1; over year change percent: 1.2 thousands of jobs and percent
- Boise City Metro Unemployment Rate In June 20263.4 percent
Concepts challenged most
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-0.7 pts
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.5 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-0.4 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.3 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
-0.2 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Referral ecosystem
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #5 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank7
What we observed
- Selected Boise City Metro Employment Sectors In June 2026professional and business services jobs thousands: 63.1; education and health services jobs thousands: 67.3; government jobs thousands: 52.7 thousands of jobs
- Boise State University Fall 2025 Enrollment28,519 students
- City Of Boise Uses An Electronic Procurement System For Opportunity Notifications, Bid Packages, Award Information, And Selected Sealed Bid Responsessystem: JAGGAER; registration free: yes; automatic bid notifications for registered vendors: yes; online sealed bid responses for selected projects: yes; registration required to do business: no process elements
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.6 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.5 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.4 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.4 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.4 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- 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 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #2–#9
#3 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #2–#4
#4 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #2–#10
#5 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #1–#6
#6 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #4–#8
#7 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #6–#11
#8 Aire ServModerately sensitive · tested #7–#9
#9 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #5–#14
#10 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #6–#10
#11 Tiger AdjustersModerately sensitive · tested #11–#13
#12 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #5–#12
#13 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #7–#13
#14 Workout AnytimeStable · tested #13–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [5] [6] [8] [16] [1] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [6] [4] [19] [1]Competitive environment: [4] [5] [10] [9] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [8] [7] [18] [1] [2] [3]Transportation, routing, and parking: [14] [2] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [10] [9] [11] [12] [13] [1] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [5] [17] [16] [8] [10]Referral ecosystem: [8] [16] [17] [5] [3]Territory quality: [4] [5] [10] [9] [14] [15] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [15] [11] [12] [13] [17] [19] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +1.9 pts | — | -0.2 pts | +0.6 pts |
| #2 HomeSmiles | +1.9 pts | — | -0.2 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #3 ActionCOACH | +1.6 pts | — | -0.1 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #4 FASTSIGNS | +1.8 pts | — | -0.1 pts | +0.2 pts |
| #5 ZOOM DRAIN | +1.1 pts | +0.4 pts | — | +0.3 pts |
| #6 Mr. Rooter | +1.0 pts | +0.3 pts | — | — |
| #7 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +1.2 pts | +0.2 pts | — | — |
| #8 Aire Serv | +1.1 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.1 pts | — |
| #9 Jan-Pro International | +1.7 pts | — | -0.7 pts | +0.1 pts |
| #10 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.7 pts | +0.3 pts | — | — |
| #11 Tiger Adjusters | +0.5 pts | — | — | — |
| #12 PuroClean | — | +0.3 pts | -0.3 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #13 Rainbow International Restoration | — | +0.3 pts | -0.4 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #14 Workout Anytime | — | — | -0.5 pts | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, HomeSmiles, ActionCOACH 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, FASTSIGNS, ZOOM DRAIN; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Boise, Idaho
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.3Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Boise, Idaho
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.3 to 70.3. PuroClean ranked highest at 70.3. Referral ecosystem added 0.4 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.3 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
- 70.3–70.3
- Category average
- 70.3
PuroClean70.3
Rainbow International Restoration70.3
Metric registry
The 25 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 | 238,429people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived facts; 2022 economic measures | Boise City city, Idaho | Context only | [4] |
| Boise city population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 1.1percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived facts; 2022 economic measures | Boise City city, Idaho | Supports research conclusion | [4] |
| Households and owner-occupied housing rate | households: 101,178; owner occupied housing rate percent: 63.2households and percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived facts; 2022 economic measures | Boise City city, Idaho | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Boise city retail sales and selected service-sector receipts | retail sales thousand usd: 7,762,813; health care and social assistance receipts thousand usd: 4,576,745; transportation and warehousing receipts thousand usd: 965,682thousand usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived facts; 2022 economic measures | Boise City city, Idaho | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Ada County employer establishment and employment base | employer establishments: 17,028; employment: 243,004; annual payroll thousand usd: 16,111,298; nonemployer establishments: 49,567counts and thousand usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2023 business measures; 2022 economic measures | Ada County, Idaho | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Ada County population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 10.3percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2023 business measures; 2022 economic measures | Ada County, Idaho | Supports research conclusion | [5] |
| Completed housing construction and demolition in Boise from 2018 through 2023 | new units constructed: 7,879; units demolished: 411; net units added: 7,468housing units | Housing inventory and construction trends through 2023; ten-year need forecast through 2033 | City of Boise | Used in scoring | [6] |
| City housing-need forecast through 2033 | total housing need: 20,194; new units needed: 15,512; rehab or replacement existing units: 4,682; rehab replacement share percent: 23housing units and percent | Housing inventory and construction trends through 2023; ten-year need forecast through 2033 | City of Boise | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Housing-cost burden among households at or below 80 percent of area median income | households at or below 80 percent ami share percent: 51; cost burdened within segment percent approximate: 60percent of households | Housing inventory and construction trends through 2023; ten-year need forecast through 2033 | City of Boise | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Boise City metro total nonfarm employment and over-the-year change in June 2026 | total nonfarm jobs thousands: 420.1; over year job change thousands: 5.1; over year change percent: 1.2thousands of jobs and percent | Employment and unemployment through June 2026; selected wage data through May 2025/March 2026 | Boise City, ID metropolitan area | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Boise City metro unemployment rate in June 2026 | 3.4percent | Employment and unemployment through June 2026; selected wage data through May 2025/March 2026 | Boise City, ID metropolitan area | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Selected Boise City metro employment sectors in June 2026 | professional and business services jobs thousands: 63.1; education and health services jobs thousands: 67.3; government jobs thousands: 52.7thousands of jobs | Employment and unemployment through June 2026; selected wage data through May 2025/March 2026 | Boise City, ID metropolitan area | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Construction and installation-related occupation shares and wages relative to the United States | construction and extraction: boise share percent: 6.7, us share percent: 4.1, boise mean hourly usd: 28.58, us mean hourly usd: 31.42, boise employment: 26,200; installation maintenance and repair: boise share percent: 4.2, us share percent: 3.9, boise mean hourly usd: 29.37, us mean hourly usd: 30.44percent of employment and usd per hour | May 2025 | Boise City, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [7] |
| Boise State University fall 2025 enrollment | 28,519students | Fall 2025 census enrollment | Boise State University | Used in scoring | [16] |
| City of Boise uses an electronic procurement system for opportunity notifications, bid packages, award information, and selected sealed-bid responses | system: JAGGAER; registration free: yes; automatic bid notifications for registered vendors: yes; online sealed bid responses for selected projects: yes; registration required to do business: noprocess elements | Current procurement-system guidance accessed August 2026 | City of Boise | Used in scoring | [17] |
| Boise retail market vacancy and average asking rent in Q2 2026 | overall vacancy percent: 4.4; average asking rent nnn usd per sqft year: 21.65; asking rent yoy change percent: 8.1percent and usd per sqft year | Q2 2026 | Boise/Treasure Valley retail market | Conditional relationship | [10] |
| Retail vacancy and asking-rent variation across Boise-named submarkets in Q2 2026 | central boise: vacancy percent: 4.4, asking rent nnn usd per sqft year: 13.57; downtown: vacancy percent: 9.2, asking rent nnn usd per sqft year: 25.16; north boise: vacancy percent: 7.4, asking rent nnn usd per sqft year: 21.66; southeast boise: vacancy percent: 3.7, asking rent nnn usd per sqft year: 46.87; southwest boise: vacancy percent: 7, asking rent nnn usd per sqft year: 20.84; west boise: vacancy percent: 4.9, asking rent nnn usd per sqft year: 16.71percent and usd per sqft year | Q2 2026 | Boise retail submarkets reported by Cushman & Wakefield | Conditional relationship | [10] |
| Boise industrial market vacancy and asking rent in Q2 2026 | overall vacancy percent: 9.6; ytd net absorption sqft: 327,687; average asking rent nnn usd per sqft month: 0.9; smaller functional assets relative leaseup: stronger than larger speculative projectspercent sqft and usd per sqft month | Q2 2026 | Boise/Treasure Valley industrial market | Context only | [9] |
| Industrial vacancy variation across selected Boise-named submarkets in Q2 2026 | airport percent: 17.1; central boise percent: 3.5; downtown percent: 17.2; north boise percent: 2.1; southeast boise percent: 1.6; southwest boise percent: 1.3; west boise percent: 3percent vacancy | Q2 2026 | Boise industrial submarkets reported by Cushman & Wakefield | Conditional relationship | [9] |
| Active State Street and Pierce Park Lane construction conditions in July 2026 | work zone active: yes; eastbound traffic shifted: yes; westbound traffic shifted: yes; left turns eliminated through work zone: yes; pierce park lane work mostly complete: yes; project phase: third and final phase in progressconstruction conditions | Active construction updates through July 23, 2026 | State Street and Pierce Park Lane work zone | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| City of Boise non-residential fire and police impact fees effective October 1, 2025 | industrial total usd per 1000 sqft: 266.01; retail total usd per 1000 sqft: 4,968.32; office total usd per 1000 sqft: 1,197.04; surcharge percent of assessed impact fees: 1; commercial fee types: fire, policeusd per 1000 sqft and percent | Current rules accessed August 2026 | City of Boise | Context only | [11] [12] |
| ACHD Impact Fee Ordinance 254 rates for selected commercial development types | effective date: 2026-03-01; office usd per 1000 sqft: 7,363; shopping center usd per 1000 sqft: 12,082; single service area: yesusd per 1000 sqft | Ordinance 254 effective March 1, 2026 | Ada County Highway District | Context only | [13] |
| Boise sign permits and design standards vary by sign type, property, development format, and special district | general rule: installed signs require city approval unless exempt; citywide prohibitions: roof signs, animated signs, strobe or flashing lights; alternative sign plan thresholds: hospital site acres minimum: 2, multi building office center acres minimum: 2, multi building industrial park acres minimum: 5, single multitenant building site acres minimum: 2; capital boulevard special design district: site plan required: yes, design review required: yes, planning and zoning approval for variances or cup: yesrules and thresholds | Current zoning and sign standards accessed August 2026 | City of Boise | Conditional relationship | [15] |
| Micron Boise manufacturing expansion employment categories and timing | micron jobs: 2,000; construction jobs: 4,500; indirect jobs: 15,000; construction initiated: 2023-10; meaningful dram output projected: 2,027jobs and timeline | Current project plan accessed August 2026; construction initiated October 2023; meaningful DRAM output projected in 2027 | Micron Boise manufacturing expansion | Context only | [18] |
| Share of Boise drinking water described by the city as coming from groundwater | 70percent | Current program guidance accessed August 2026 | City of Boise | Context only | [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 72.34 after target-market demand +1.9 pts, referral ecosystem +0.6 pts, and labor and staffing friction -0.2 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the claims or metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is clearly distinguished from publicly accessible evidence.
- 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.
- 4QuickFacts: Boise City city, Idaho
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Boise city population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households and owner-occupied housing rate, and Boise city retail sales and selected service-sector receipts
- 5QuickFacts: Ada County, Idaho
Used for: Ada County employer establishment and employment base and Ada County population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025
- 6City of Boise Housing Needs Analysis: 2024 Report Update
Used for: Completed housing construction and demolition in Boise from 2018 through 2023, City housing-need forecast through 2033, and Housing-cost burden among households at or below 80 percent of area median income
- 7Occupational Employment and Wages in Boise City — May 2025
Used for: Construction and installation-related occupation shares and wages relative to the United States
- 8Boise City Area Economic Summary
Used for: Boise City metro total nonfarm employment and over-the-year change in June 2026, Boise City metro unemployment rate in June 2026, and Selected Boise City metro employment sectors in June 2026
- 9Boise Industrial MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Boise industrial market vacancy and asking rent in Q2 2026 and Industrial vacancy variation across selected Boise-named submarkets in Q2 2026
- 10Boise Retail MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Boise retail market vacancy and average asking rent in Q2 2026 and Retail vacancy and asking-rent variation across Boise-named submarkets in Q2 2026
- 11Impact Fees
Used for: City of Boise non-residential fire and police impact fees effective October 1, 2025
- 12Boise City Impact Fee Schedule effective October 1, 2025
Used for: City of Boise non-residential fire and police impact fees effective October 1, 2025
- 13ACHD Commissioners Adopt Impact Fee & Capital Improvements Plan Update
Used for: ACHD Impact Fee Ordinance 254 rates for selected commercial development types
- 14State Street and Pierce Park Lane Intersection
Used for: Active State Street and Pierce Park Lane construction conditions in July 2026
- 15Signs
Used for: Boise sign permits and design standards vary by sign type, property, development format, and special district
- 16Facts and figures
Used for: Boise State University fall 2025 enrollment
- 17Vendor Registration
Used for: City of Boise uses an electronic procurement system for opportunity notifications, bid packages, award information, and selected sealed-bid responses
- 18Boise | Manufacturing Expansion
Used for: Micron Boise manufacturing expansion employment categories and timing
- 19Recycled Water
Used for: Share of Boise drinking water described by the city as coming from groundwater
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.