70.7 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Trenton, New Jersey
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Trenton, New Jersey. Replacement and repair demand was a leading positive mechanism. Discretionary-spending pressure 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
24Sources used
20Primary sources
36Local 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
0.7 points average among 7 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 12 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Trenton, New Jersey
City Wide, ActionCOACH, and Jan-Pro International produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Replacement and repair demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 7 exposed concepts, adding 0.7 points on average. Discretionary-spending pressure was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.4 points on average. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing university and government account 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 | 71.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsReferral ecosystem | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Trenton, New Jersey
Very old occupied housing stock supports recurring repair and system-replacement demand
This relationship affected 7 concepts and added 0.7 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Derived share of owner- and renter-occupied units in the plan table built before 1980: 87.3 percent of owner and renter occupied units in table. [5]
Housing cost burden and low household purchasing-power indicators constrain discretionary consumer demand
This relationship affected 2 concepts and reduced 0.4 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Median household income in 2024 dollars, 2020-2024: 52,537 usd per year. [4]
Trenton is the New Jersey state capital, and the State is identified as the city's single largest employer and landowner.
Government and educational anchors support institutional-account prospects and professional referral networks, but they should not be converted into uniform citywide or after-hours walk-in demand. Trenton250 specifically describes downtown retail as heavily dependent on the 9-to-5 office workforce and as failing to capture some worker retail demand. Fixed-location consumer concepts therefore require current trade-area and daypart validation even where institutional account demand is supported. [6] [7] [1] [9]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
State-capital and downtown institutional concentration supports institutional account and professional-referral potential3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 4 sources
- Government employment in July 2026, preliminary: 82,000 jobs [9]
- Large downtown employment anchors identified by Trenton250: State of New Jersey, City of Trenton, Thomas Edison State University, Mercer County Community College James Kearney Campus named entities [7] [1]
- State of New Jersey identified as the single largest landowner and employer in Trenton: yes boolean [6] [7] [1]
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Institutional professional relationship baseReferral ecosystem
Housing cost burden and low household purchasing-power indicators constrain discretionary consumer demand1 modeled effect
Discretionary-spending pressureTarget-market demand
Very old occupied housing stock supports recurring repair and system-replacement demand1 modeled effect
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
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 alignment71.6
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
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 |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.55 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.55 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#8
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.6 pts Referral ecosystemNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.95 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.95 |
| 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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#12
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.85 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.85 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#14
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.8 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.82 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.8 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.82 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#9
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.8 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.82 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.8 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.82 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#10
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.8 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.77 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.8 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | 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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.77 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#7
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.74 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.74 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#7
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.7 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.70 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.70 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#11
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.6 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.66 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.66 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#10
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.61 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.61 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#13
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.4 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 |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.38 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 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.38 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#11
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.37 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.37 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.2
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.8 pts Target-market demand
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| -0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.81 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 69.19 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand -0.8 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| 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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.55 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #3 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank11
What we observed
- Median Household Income In 2024 Dollars, 2020 202452,537 usd per year
- Persons In Poverty21.6 percent
- Consolidated Plan Table 22 Jurisdiction Wide Housing Cost Burden Distributionunder or equal 30 percent: 51.3; between 30 and 50 percent: 21.9; over 50 percent: 26.8; no or negative income not computed: 4.2 percent of households
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.2 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+0.8 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.6 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.4 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.3 pts
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.8 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, 10 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #4 to #13, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.7 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Derived Share Of Owner And Renter Occupied Units In The Plan Table Built Before 198087.3 percent of owner and renter occupied units in table
- Vacant Housing Units And Share Reported From 2019 2023 Acs Estimatescount: 3,767; share percent: 10.5 count and percent
- Owner Occupied Units Built Before 195072 percent of owner occupied units
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.8 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.8 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.8 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.7 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.6 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 3 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. ActionCOACH moved from #2 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted3 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank11
Concepts helped most
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.6 pts
City WideFacility management
+0.4 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.1 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Labor and staffing frictionNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideHighly sensitive · tested #1–#8
#2 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #2–#12
#3 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#14
#4 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #1–#9
#5 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #2–#10
#6 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #3–#7
#7 Rainbow International RestorationStable · tested #6–#7
#8 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #4–#11
#9 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #4–#10
#10 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #6–#13
#11 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #5–#11
#12 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsModerately sensitive · tested #9–#12
#13 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #8–#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] [7] [9] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [21] [1]Competitive environment: [20] [4] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [10] [8] [9] [6] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [15] [16] [17] [22] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [11] [12] [23] [22] [5] [2] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [18] [19] [6] [7] [20]Referral ecosystem: [6] [7] [9] [1]Territory quality: [14] [13] [22] [15] [16] [7] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [14] [13] [21] [24] [11] [12] [15] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +1.2 pts | — | +0.4 pts |
| #2 ActionCOACH | +0.3 pts | — | +0.6 pts |
| #3 Jan-Pro International | +0.8 pts | — | — |
| #4 ZOOM DRAIN | — | +0.8 pts | — |
| #5 Mr. Rooter | — | +0.8 pts | — |
| #6 Aire Serv | — | +0.8 pts | — |
| #7 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.1 pts | +0.6 pts | — |
| #8 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.7 pts | — |
| #9 FASTSIGNS | +0.6 pts | — | +0.1 pts |
| #10 PuroClean | — | +0.6 pts | — |
| #11 HomeSmiles | +0.4 pts | — | — |
| #12 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | +0.4 pts | — |
| #13 Tiger Adjusters | — | — | — |
| #14 Workout Anytime | -0.8 pts | — | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, ActionCOACH, Jan-Pro International led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from property replacement-cycle demand while remaining less exposed to competitive environment. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for City Wide, ActionCOACH, Jan-Pro International; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Trenton, New Jersey
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.7Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Trenton, New Jersey
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.6 to 70.7. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.7. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.6 points on average among the affected concepts.
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
- 70.6–70.7
- Category average
- 70.7
Rainbow International Restoration70.7
PuroClean70.6
Metric registry
The 36 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 | 91,506people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-based QuickFacts; 2022 economic data | Trenton, New Jersey | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 0.8percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-based QuickFacts; 2022 economic data | Trenton, New Jersey | Context only | [4] |
| Population density in 2020 | 11,989.8people per square mile | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-based QuickFacts; 2022 economic data | Trenton, New Jersey | Context only | [4] |
| Households, 2020-2024 | 32,052households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-based QuickFacts; 2022 economic data | Trenton, New Jersey | Context only | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2020-2024 | 37.9percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-based QuickFacts; 2022 economic data | Trenton, New Jersey | Context only | [4] |
| Median gross rent, 2020-2024 | 1,294usd per month | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-based QuickFacts; 2022 economic data | Trenton, New Jersey | Context only | [4] |
| Median household income in 2024 dollars, 2020-2024 | 52,537usd per year | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-based QuickFacts; 2022 economic data | Trenton, New Jersey | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Persons in poverty | 21.6percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-based QuickFacts; 2022 economic data | Trenton, New Jersey | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Owner-occupied units built before 1950 | 72percent of owner occupied units | Primarily 2016-2020 CHAS/ACS, 2019-2023 ACS, and plan-year 2025 | Trenton, New Jersey | Used in scoring | [5] [1] |
| Renter-occupied units built before 1950 | 53percent of renter occupied units | Primarily 2016-2020 CHAS/ACS, 2019-2023 ACS, and plan-year 2025 | Trenton, New Jersey | Used in scoring | [5] [1] |
| Derived share of owner- and renter-occupied units in the plan table built before 1980 | 87.3percent of owner and renter occupied units in table | Primarily 2016-2020 CHAS/ACS, 2019-2023 ACS, and plan-year 2025 | Trenton, New Jersey | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Vacant housing units and share reported from 2019-2023 ACS estimates | count: 3,767; share percent: 10.5count and percent | Primarily 2016-2020 CHAS/ACS, 2019-2023 ACS, and plan-year 2025 | Trenton, New Jersey | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Occupied units the Consolidated Plan assumes have higher lead-based-paint hazard risk | count: 29,808; share percent: 92.8count and percent of occupied units | Primarily 2016-2020 CHAS/ACS, 2019-2023 ACS, and plan-year 2025 | Trenton, New Jersey | Context only | [5] [1] |
| Consolidated Plan narrative household cost-burden rates | over 30 percent of income: 45; over 50 percent of income: 17.2percent of households | Primarily 2016-2020 CHAS/ACS, 2019-2023 ACS, and plan-year 2025 | Trenton, New Jersey | Used in scoring | [5] [1] |
| Consolidated Plan Table 22 jurisdiction-wide housing cost-burden distribution | under or equal 30 percent: 51.3; between 30 and 50 percent: 21.9; over 50 percent: 26.8; no or negative income not computed: 4.2percent of households | Primarily 2016-2020 CHAS/ACS, 2019-2023 ACS, and plan-year 2025 | Trenton, New Jersey | Used in scoring | [5] |
| State of New Jersey identified as the single largest landowner and employer in Trenton | yesboolean | Current partnership description accessed August 2026; partnership established 2018 | Trenton, New Jersey | Supports modeled relationship | [6] [7] [1] |
| Large downtown employment anchors identified by Trenton250 | State of New Jersey, City of Trenton, Thomas Edison State University, Mercer County Community College James Kearney Campusnamed entities | Trenton250 master-plan economic development findings published circa 2017; current page accessed August 2026 | Downtown Trenton | Conditional relationship | [7] [1] |
| Government employment in July 2026, preliminary | 82,000jobs | July 2026 preliminary labor-force and employment data | Trenton-Princeton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area | Supports modeled relationship | [9] |
| Trenton250 describes downtown retail as heavily dependent on the 9-to-5 office workforce and reports limited capture of worker retail demand | yesqualitative condition | Trenton250 master-plan economic development findings published circa 2017; current page accessed August 2026 | Downtown Trenton | Supports modeled relationship | [7] [1] |
| New Jersey minimum wage for most employees effective January 1, 2026 | 15.92usd per hour | Rate effective January 1, 2026 | New Jersey | Context only | [10] [2] |
| Selected Trenton-Princeton MSA major occupational mean hourly wages in May 2025 | all occupations: 39.69; management: 87.6; food preparation and serving: 19.94; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: 20.4; office and administrative support: 27.75; construction and extraction: 38.93; installation maintenance and repair: 32.89; transportation and material moving: 22.77usd per hour | May 2025 | Trenton-Princeton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [8] |
| Trenton-Princeton MSA unemployment rate in July 2026, preliminary | 4.6percent | July 2026 preliminary labor-force and employment data | Trenton-Princeton, NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [9] |
| Current displayed quarterly Private Fire Protection fixed charges | 3 inch: 125.19; 4 inch: 210.13; 6 inch: 473.49; 8 inch: 854.9; 10 inch: 1,280.68; 12 inch: 1,958.24usd per quarter | Current billed schedule displayed August 2026; section shows amendments through July 6, 2023 | Trenton Water Works users subject to Schedule C | Conditional relationship | [11] [2] |
| Annualized current displayed fixed charge for an 8-inch private fire-protection service line | 3,419.6usd per year | Current billed schedule displayed August 2026; section shows amendments through July 6, 2023 | Trenton Water Works users with an 8-inch private fire-protection service line | Conditional relationship | [11] [2] |
| Trenton Water Works announced implementation of a new rate schedule beginning October 2, 2026 | implementation start: 2026-10-02; common residential fixed charge per quarter: 83.2; first 15 ccf consumption rate: 2.22; consumption rate above 15 ccf: 3.33date and usd per ccf | New billing implementation beginning October 2, 2026 | Trenton Water Works five-municipality service area, including Trenton | Conditional relationship | [12] |
| Locally designated historic landmarks and historic districts | local historic landmarks: 58; historic districts: 8counts | Current commission page accessed August 2026 | Trenton, New Jersey | Conditional relationship | [13] [3] |
| Historic-site and historic-district review reaches exterior facade changes and visible accessory improvements including signs and exterior lighting | yesqualitative rule | Current code accessed August 2026, including 2026 historic-preservation amendments | Trenton historic sites and historic districts | Conditional relationship | [14] [13] [3] |
| Overnight street-parking restriction for certain trucks, step vans, omnibuses, and marked commercial vans/trucks in residential areas | weight threshold gvw lbs: 6,000; restricted start: 20:00; restricted end: 06:00; residential area definition: within 100 feet of an occupied residential dwelling; service exception: Allowed when necessary for a service or temporary need if the Police Department is promptly notified and a notice is displayed behind the windshield.rule parameters | Current code accessed August 2026 | Residential areas of Trenton | Conditional relationship | [15] [3] |
| City reports parking shortages in certain areas and reserves some streets for Resident Parking only | yesqualitative condition | Current program page accessed August 2026 | Selected Trenton resident-parking districts | Conditional relationship | [16] [3] |
| Five-point West State/Prospect-Spring-West Hanover intersection operating in flashing-red stop mode while emergency signal redesign/reconstruction proceeds | yesqualitative condition | February 2026 emergency condition and redesign/reconstruction plan | West State Street / Prospect Street (Richey Place) / Spring Street / West Hanover Street | Context only | [17] |
| City centralized procurement requires vendors to complete an application to be added to the official bidder list | yesqualitative rule | Current procurement procedures accessed August 2026 | City of Trenton procurement | Context only | [18] |
| NJSTART vendor page states more than 80,000 vendors are registered | 80,000vendors minimum | Current NJSTART vendor system accessed August 2026 | New Jersey procurement platform | Context only | [19] |
| Share of Trenton reported within the 100- and/or 500-year floodplain | 20percent approximately | Plan revision September 9, 2024; cited floodplain analysis drawn from city planning and hazard sources | Trenton, New Jersey | Conditional relationship | [22] |
| Transportation, communications, and utility infrastructure areas reported affected by floodplain issues | 50percent approximately | Plan revision September 9, 2024; cited floodplain analysis drawn from city planning and hazard sources | Trenton, New Jersey | Context only | [22] |
| Covered New Jersey rental dwellings require lead-based-paint hazard inspection every three years or upon tenant turnover when no valid lead-safe certification exists | periodic interval years: 3; tenant turnover trigger: yes; pre 1978 scope: yes; exemptions exist: yesrule parameters | Current P.L. 2021 c.182 / N.J.A.C. 5:28A implementation guidance accessed August 2026 | Covered Trenton rental dwellings | Context only | [21] [5] |
| Covered establishments near residential zoning face overnight operating-hour restrictions, subject to stated exemptions | within 100 feet of residential zone: closed 23:00-06:00; general nonresidential rule: additional restrictions apply under Article V; exemptions exist: yesrule parameters | Current code accessed August 2026; article amended May 21, 2020 | Covered establishments in Trenton | Context only | [24] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects that apply without an unresolved site, territory, customer, or project gate.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 71.55 after target-market demand +1.2 pts and referral ecosystem +0.4 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Utility Delta Audit: Structural Inefficiencies and CapEx Traps in Key U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Owner-occupied units built before 1950, Renter-occupied units built before 1950, Occupied units the Consolidated Plan assumes have higher lead-based-paint hazard risk, Consolidated Plan narrative household cost-burden rates, and State of New Jersey identified as the single largest landowner and employer in Trenton
- 2Forensic Audit Report: Municipal Deal-Killer Constraints and Structural Capital ToxicityInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: New Jersey minimum wage for most employees effective January 1, 2026, Current displayed quarterly Private Fire Protection fixed charges, and Annualized current displayed fixed charge for an 8-inch private fire-protection service line
- 3Franchise data - remake - augInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Locally designated historic landmarks and historic districts, Historic-site and historic-district review reaches exterior facade changes and visible accessory improvements including signs and exterior lighting, Overnight street-parking restriction for certain trucks, step vans, omnibuses, and marked commercial vans/trucks in residential areas, and City reports parking shortages in certain areas and reserves some streets for Resident Parking only
- 4QuickFacts: Trenton city, New Jersey
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Population density in 2020, Households, 2020-2024, and Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2020-2024
- 5City of Trenton 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan and 2025 Annual Action Plan
Used for: Owner-occupied units built before 1950, Renter-occupied units built before 1950, Derived share of owner- and renter-occupied units in the plan table built before 1980, Vacant housing units and share reported from 2019-2023 ACS estimates, and Occupied units the Consolidated Plan assumes have higher lead-based-paint hazard risk
- 6NJ State Capital Partnership
Used for: State of New Jersey identified as the single largest landowner and employer in Trenton
- 7Trenton250: Downtown Economic Development
Used for: State of New Jersey identified as the single largest landowner and employer in Trenton, Large downtown employment anchors identified by Trenton250, and Trenton250 describes downtown retail as heavily dependent on the 9-to-5 office workforce and reports limited capture of worker retail demand
- 8Occupational Employment and Wages in Trenton-Princeton — May 2025
Used for: Selected Trenton-Princeton MSA major occupational mean hourly wages in May 2025
- 9Trenton-Princeton, NJ Economy at a Glance
Used for: Government employment in July 2026, preliminary and Trenton-Princeton MSA unemployment rate in July 2026, preliminary
- 10New Jersey's Minimum Wage to Increase to $15.92/Hour for Most Employees in 2026
Used for: New Jersey minimum wage for most employees effective January 1, 2026
- 11Article II: Water Rates and Charges — City of Trenton Municipal Code
Used for: Current displayed quarterly Private Fire Protection fixed charges and Annualized current displayed fixed charge for an 8-inch private fire-protection service line
- 12Trenton Water Works to Begin Implementing New Water Rates October 2
Used for: Trenton Water Works announced implementation of a new rate schedule beginning October 2, 2026
- 13Landmarks Commission for Historic Preservation
Used for: Locally designated historic landmarks and historic districts and Historic-site and historic-district review reaches exterior facade changes and visible accessory improvements including signs and exterior lighting
- 14Article 15: Historic District Regulations — City of Trenton Land Development Ordinance
Used for: Historic-site and historic-district review reaches exterior facade changes and visible accessory improvements including signs and exterior lighting
- 15Chapter 14: Traffic — City of Trenton Municipal Code
Used for: Overnight street-parking restriction for certain trucks, step vans, omnibuses, and marked commercial vans/trucks in residential areas
- 16Division of Traffic & Transportation
Used for: City reports parking shortages in certain areas and reserves some streets for Resident Parking only
- 17City of Trenton Announces Emergency Reconstruction Plan for West State Street Intersection
Used for: Five-point West State/Prospect-Spring-West Hanover intersection operating in flashing-red stop mode while emergency signal redesign/reconstruction proceeds
- 18Division of Purchasing
Used for: City centralized procurement requires vendors to complete an application to be added to the official bidder list
- 19NJ Division of Purchase and Property — Vendors
Used for: NJSTART vendor page states more than 80,000 vendors are registered
- 20
- 21Lead-Based Paint Inspections in Rental Dwellings
Used for: Covered New Jersey rental dwellings require lead-based-paint hazard inspection every three years or upon tenant turnover when no valid lead-safe certification exists
- 22Stormwater Management Plan — City of Trenton, Mercer County, New Jersey
Used for: Share of Trenton reported within the 100- and/or 500-year floodplain and Transportation, communications, and utility infrastructure areas reported affected by floodplain issues
- 23
- 24Article V: Hours of Operation — City of Trenton
Used for: Covered establishments near residential zoning face overnight operating-hour restrictions, subject to stated exemptions
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.