69.8 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Antioch, California
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Antioch, California. Household service demand was a leading positive mechanism. Frontline labor 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
23Sources used
18Primary 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
0.6 points average among 13 affected concepts
0.4 points average reduction among 8 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 9 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Antioch, California
Aire Serv, Mr. Rooter, and ZOOM DRAIN produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Household service demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 8 exposed concepts, adding 0.5 points on average. Frontline labor pressure was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.3 points on average. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing healthcare institutional service demand moved it from #6 to #11 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 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 71.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Antioch, California
Recent population growth, active home permitting, and a large approved/in-review housing pipeline support an expanding future household-service base
This relationship affected 8 concepts and added 0.5 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Housing units in review and approved in the April 2026 development pipeline: in review: 2,940; approved: 3,922; total: 6,862 housing units. [6] [5]
Bay Area frontline occupational wages materially exceed U.S. averages, while Contra Costa County's June 2026 unemployment rate was below the California rate
This relationship affected 9 concepts and reduced 0.3 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Contra Costa County unemployment rate in June 2026: 4.5 percent. [11] [10]
Antioch has two open general acute care hospitals with 291 combined licensed beds and Census reports $1.3741 billion in 2022 health care and social assistance receipts/revenue.
The healthcare footprint supports institution-oriented facility and commercial-service demand. It should not be converted into a claim of general retail foot traffic, broad professional referrals, or a citywide labor premium without separate evidence for those channels. [8] [9] [5]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Recent population growth, active home permitting, and a large approved/in-review housing pipeline support an expanding future household-service base1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
A large share of Antioch's occupied housing predates 2000, supporting elevated housing-system repair and replacement opportunity without assuming original systems remain1 modeled effect
Housing-system replacement demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Two open general acute care hospitals with 291 combined licensed beds support institution-oriented commercial service demand1 modeled effect
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
Bay Area frontline occupational wages materially exceed U.S. averages, while Contra Costa County's June 2026 unemployment rate was below the California rate1 modeled effect
Frontline labor pressureLabor and staffing friction
Active I-680/SR 4 interchange construction can affect Antioch operations whose routes materially depend on the SR 4 connection to central Contra Costa and the wider Bay Area1 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 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.4
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.9 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.6 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 | +1.39 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.9 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 71.39 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#6
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.2
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.6 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 |
| +0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.20 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 | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 71.20 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#4
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
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 |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.14 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 71.14 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.1 |
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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#7
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.8 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 |
| +0.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.10 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 | +0.8 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 71.10 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.1 |
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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#6
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1
Mister Sparky Electric
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 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.08 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 71.08 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.1 |
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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#7
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.3 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 |
| +1.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.08 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 | +1.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 71.08 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.1 |
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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#9
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.1 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 | +1.1 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.88 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 | +1.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 70.88 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#11
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
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 | +0.48 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
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 | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 70.48 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#9
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.14 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 70.14 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#13
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.2 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 |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.13 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 70.13 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#14
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.9 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.9 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.01 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.99 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#14
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.08 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 | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 69.92 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.9 |
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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.2 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.5 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.14 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 69.86 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.9 |
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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.2 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.23 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 | +0.2 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 69.77 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated Aire Serv
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.9 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 71.39 |
| 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.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectPositive local support
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. HomeSmiles moved from #7 to #11, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected+0.6 pts
Average across all concepts+0.6 pts
Concepts changing rank11
What we observed
- Population Change From The April 2020 Estimate Base To July 20253.2 percent
- Health Care And Social Assistance Receipts/revenue In 20221,374,100,000 USD
- Housing Units In Review And Approved In The April 2026 Development Pipelinein review: 2,940; approved: 3,922; total: 6,862 housing units
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.3 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.1 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+0.9 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.8 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.6 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, 7 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #1 to #6, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.5 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank7
What we observed
- Owner Occupied Housing Unit Rate63.6 percent of occupied housing units
- Occupied Housing Units Built Before 2000units: 29,878; share percent: 80.66 housing units and percent
- Occupied Housing Units Built From 1980 Through 1999units: 14,394; share percent: 38.86 housing units and percent
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.9 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.6 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.6 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.5 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+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 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 13 concepts changed position. City Wide moved from #6 to #2, 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 rank13
What we observed
- Selected Major Occupational Group Mean Hourly Wages In The Regional Labor Market Compared With U.s. Averagesfood preparation and serving: regional: 22.91, us: 17.86; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: regional: 25.46, us: 19.66; sales and related: regional: 36.06, us: 26.43; office and administrative support: regional: 32.96, us: 24.79; construction and extraction: regional: 43.66, us: 31.42; installation maintenance and repair: regional: 38.95, us: 30.44 USD per hour mean
- Contra Costa County Unemployment Rate In June 20264.5 percent
Concepts challenged most
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-0.9 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-0.5 pts
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.4 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
-0.2 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
- Referral ecosystemNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #1–#6
#2 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #2–#4
#3 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #2–#7
#4 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsModerately sensitive · tested #3–#6
#5 Mister Sparky ElectricModerately sensitive · tested #4–#7
#6 City WideHighly sensitive · tested #1–#9
#7 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #2–#11
#8 FASTSIGNSModerately sensitive · tested #6–#9
#9 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13
#10 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #7–#14
#11 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #8–#14
#12 Workout AnytimeModerately sensitive · tested #10–#13
#13 Rainbow International RestorationModerately sensitive · tested #11–#13
#14 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #10–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
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: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [2] [4]Property replacement-cycle demand: [7] [5] [22] [2]Competitive environment: [5] [20] [4]Labor and staffing friction: [10] [11] [8] [3]Transportation, routing, and parking: [12] [5] [3] [2] [4]Real estate and site feasibility: [21] [20] [13] [16] [19] [2] [4]Sales and customer acquisition: [5] [20] [4]Referral ecosystem: [8] [9] [5] [20] [23] [4]Territory quality: [13] [5] [20] [4]Regulatory and operating friction: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [13] [3] [4]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 Aire Serv | +0.6 pts | +0.9 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #2 Mr. Rooter | +0.6 pts | +0.6 pts | — |
| #3 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.5 pts | +0.6 pts | — |
| #4 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.8 pts | +0.3 pts | — |
| #5 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.5 pts | +0.5 pts | — |
| #6 City Wide | +1.3 pts | — | -0.2 pts |
| #7 HomeSmiles | +1.1 pts | — | -0.2 pts |
| #8 FASTSIGNS | +0.5 pts | — | — |
| #9 Tiger Adjusters | +0.2 pts | — | -0.1 pts |
| #10 ActionCOACH | +0.2 pts | — | — |
| #11 Jan-Pro International | +0.9 pts | — | -0.9 pts |
| #12 Workout Anytime | +0.4 pts | — | -0.5 pts |
| #13 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.2 pts | +0.2 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #14 PuroClean | — | +0.2 pts | -0.4 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
Aire Serv, Mr. Rooter, ZOOM DRAIN 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 Aire Serv, ZOOM DRAIN, City Wide; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Antioch, California
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.8Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Antioch, California
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.8 to 69.9. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 69.9. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.2 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.5 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
- 69.8–69.9
- Category average
- 69.8
Rainbow International Restoration69.9
PuroClean69.8
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 | 118,958people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 economic measures | Antioch, California | Context only | [5] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 3.2percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 economic measures | Antioch, California | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate | 63.6percent of occupied housing units | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 economic measures | Antioch, California | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Mean travel time to work for workers age 16 and older | 42minutes | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 economic measures | Antioch, California | Context only | [5] |
| Median household income | 97,4652024 USD | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 economic measures | Antioch, California | Context only | [5] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue in 2022 | 1,374,100,000USD | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 economic measures | Antioch, California | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Housing units in review and approved in the April 2026 development pipeline | in review: 2,940; approved: 3,922; total: 6,862housing units | April 2026 | Antioch, California | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Single-family dwelling permits issued in April 2026 | 16permits | April 2026 | Antioch, California | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Occupied housing units built before 2000 | units: 29,878; share percent: 80.66housing units and percent | ACS 2019-2023 5-year estimates | Antioch, California | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Occupied housing units built from 1980 through 1999 | units: 14,394; share percent: 38.86housing units and percent | ACS 2019-2023 5-year estimates | Antioch, California | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Licensed beds at Kaiser Foundation Hospital - Antioch | 150licensed beds | Current facility profile accessed August 2026 | Kaiser Foundation Hospital - Antioch | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Licensed beds at Sutter Delta Medical Center | 141licensed beds | Current facility profile accessed August 2026 | Sutter Delta Medical Center | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Combined licensed bed capacity of the two open general acute care hospitals in Antioch | 291licensed beds | Current facility profile accessed August 2026 | Antioch, California | Used in scoring | [8] [9] |
| Selected major occupational-group mean hourly wages in the regional labor market compared with U.S. averages | food preparation and serving: regional: 22.91, us: 17.86; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: regional: 25.46, us: 19.66; sales and related: regional: 36.06, us: 26.43; office and administrative support: regional: 32.96, us: 24.79; construction and extraction: regional: 43.66, us: 31.42; installation maintenance and repair: regional: 38.95, us: 30.44USD per hour mean | May 2025 | San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, California, including Contra Costa County | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Contra Costa County unemployment rate in June 2026 | 4.5percent | June 2026 preliminary county labor force data, 2025 benchmark | Contra Costa County, California | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Proposed total project cost for I-680/SR 4 Interchange Improvements Phases 2A and 4 in the executed baseline | 269,200,000USD | Executed baseline approved December 2025; construction schedule beginning July 2026 | I-680/SR 4 interchange near Martinez and Concord, Contra Costa County | Conditional relationship | [12] |
| Programmed construction window for I-680/SR 4 Interchange Improvements Phases 2A and 4 | construction award: 2026-07-06; construction acceptance: 2029-12-31date range | Executed baseline approved December 2025; construction schedule beginning July 2026 | I-680/SR 4 interchange near Martinez and Concord, Contra Costa County | Conditional relationship | [12] |
| SR 4 corridor role for Antioch and eastern Contra Costa County | The executed project baseline identifies SR 4 as the only major east-west transportation link joining Antioch, Bay Point, Pittsburg, and Brentwood with central Contra Costa County and the Bay Area.text | Executed baseline approved December 2025; construction schedule beginning July 2026 | State Route 4, Contra Costa County | Conditional relationship | [12] |
| Commercial sites designated for the Commercial Infill Housing overlay | site count: 10; total acres: 108.5; effective date: 2022-05-26sites and acres | Regulations effective May 26, 2022; current page accessed August 2026 | Ten CIH-designated commercial sites in Antioch | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| Commercial sign review and site-specific sign-program framework | replacement signs: Usually require a building permit routed to Planning for current design standards, municipal code, and any applicable sign program.; new signage rebranding remodeling: Usually requires Design Review approval.; site specific sign programs listed: 31regulatory requirements | Current sign review requirements accessed August 2026 | Antioch, California | Conditional relationship | [14] [15] |
| Selected operating limits on Antioch home occupations | external business evidence prohibited: yes; customer visits: Generally prohibited except up to six students per day for lessons or tutoring.; commercial vehicle limit: One commercial vehicle owned by an occupant, no greater than one-ton classification; listed trailers and food trucks/carts are prohibited.; hazardous storage: Storage of hazardous chemicals or supplies not normally found at a private residence is prohibited.regulatory requirements | Current home-occupation rules accessed August 2026 | Antioch, California | Context only | [16] |
| Zoning review requirement and stated processing window for in-city business licenses | planning zoning review required: yes; stated processing window weeks: minimum: 2, maximum: 4process requirement | Current process accessed August 2026; fee changes effective July 1, 2026 | Antioch, California | Context only | [18] |
| City development impact fee total for nonresidential development | general administration per sqft: 0.08; public works per sqft: 0.07; police per sqft: 0.18; parks and recreation per sqft: 0; total per sqft: 0.33; administrative charge percent: 3USD per square foot and percent | Effective July 1, 2026, with certain fees effective July 26, 2026 | City of Antioch | Context only | [19] |
| Public industrial-lease listing snapshot shows multiple Antioch spaces, including small-bay options | public listings count: 9; examples: address: 1802-1830 Verne Roberts Cir, available space sqft range: 2,500, 9,200, asking rent usd per sqft per year range: 13.8, 14.4, address: 401 Sunset Dr, available space sqft: 7,800, asking rent usd per sqft per year: 13.2, address: 3201-3299 E 18th St, available space sqft: 3,920, asking rent usd per sqft per year: 15listing snapshot | Live public listing snapshot accessed August 14, 2026 | Antioch, California | Context only | [21] |
| Long-term peat-soil subsidence rate documented for developed central and western Delta islands | rate inches per year: minimum: 1, maximum: 3; scope: Developed islands in the central and western Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta affected by reclamation and agricultureinches per year and scope | Long-term subsidence research on developed Delta islands | Developed central and western Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta islands | Context only | [22] |
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, Aire Serv reached 71.39 after property replacement-cycle demand +0.9 pts, target-market demand +0.6 pts, and labor and staffing friction -0.1 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. 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.
- 1Franchise-to-city operating-fit scoring modelInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Supplied structural franchise operating-fit research docketInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Jurisdictional Risk and Structural Friction Analysis: A Forensic Audit of Municipal Deal-KillersInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4Supplied neighborhood franchise operating notesInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 5QuickFacts: Antioch city, California
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Owner-occupied housing unit rate, Mean travel time to work for workers age 16 and older, and Median household income
- 6Development Activity Report Dashboard — April 2026
Used for: Housing units in review and approved in the April 2026 development pipeline and Single-family dwelling permits issued in April 2026
- 7Community Development Block Grant agenda materials — MA-20 Age of Housing Stock by Year Built
Used for: Occupied housing units built before 2000 and Occupied housing units built from 1980 through 1999
- 8Hospital Profile: Kaiser Foundation Hospital - Antioch
Used for: Licensed beds at Kaiser Foundation Hospital - Antioch and Combined licensed bed capacity of the two open general acute care hospitals in Antioch
- 9Hospital Profile: Sutter Delta Medical Center
Used for: Licensed beds at Sutter Delta Medical Center and Combined licensed bed capacity of the two open general acute care hospitals in Antioch
- 10Occupational Employment and Wages in San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont — May 2025
Used for: Selected major occupational-group mean hourly wages in the regional labor market compared with U.S. averages
- 11California’s Unemployment Rate Drops to 5.2% in June
Used for: Contra Costa County unemployment rate in June 2026
- 12TCEP Baseline Agreement: I-680/SR 4 Interchange Improvements — Phases 2A and 4
Used for: Proposed total project cost for I-680/SR 4 Interchange Improvements Phases 2A and 4 in the executed baseline, Programmed construction window for I-680/SR 4 Interchange Improvements Phases 2A and 4, and SR 4 corridor role for Antioch and eastern Contra Costa County
- 13Commercial Infill Housing (CIH) Overlay
Used for: Commercial sites designated for the Commercial Infill Housing overlay
- 14Sign Information
Used for: Commercial sign review and site-specific sign-program framework
- 15Design Review
Used for: Commercial sign review and site-specific sign-program framework
- 16Home Occupations
Used for: Selected operating limits on Antioch home occupations
- 17
- 18Business License Applications
Used for: Zoning review requirement and stated processing window for in-city business licenses
- 19Master Fee Schedule Effective July 1, 2026 as Amended June 9, 2026
Used for: City development impact fee total for nonresidential development
- 20
- 21Antioch Industrial Spaces for Lease
Used for: Public industrial-lease listing snapshot shows multiple Antioch spaces, including small-bay options
- 22Decomposition of Organic Soils in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Used for: Long-term peat-soil subsidence rate documented for developed central and western Delta islands
- 23
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.