70.2 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Jersey City, New Jersey
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Jersey City, New Jersey. Household service demand was a leading positive mechanism.
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
16Primary sources
30Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
1.2 points average among 8 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 7 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Jersey City, New Jersey
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Aire Serv, and Mr. Rooter 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 1.2 points on average. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors was especially relationship-sensitive: removing household service demand moved it from #1 to #7 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 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 71.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.8 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 71.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 71.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.3 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 71.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Jersey City, New Jersey
Sustained housing-unit growth expands the household service base
This relationship affected 8 concepts and added 1.2 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Housing units authorized by building permits in December 2025: 389 housing units. [6] [4]
scheduled-home-service
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was target-market demand, while the main constraint was competitive environment. [4] [6] [5] [1]
Commercial-vehicle storage restrictions and constrained curb management can reduce route flexibility
Actual productivity impact depends on the franchise vehicle class, overnight storage plan, stop density, loading requirements, and proposed routes or customer sites. [8] [10] [9]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Sustained housing-unit growth expands the household service base1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
A substantial prewar housing segment supports repair and replacement-service demand1 modeled effect
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Historic-district and landmark review can require site-specific signage and facade adaptation1 modeled effect
Signage and prototype adaptation burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.9
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +1.8 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 |
| +1.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.90 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| 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 | 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 | 71.90 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- 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 +1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#7
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.6
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +1.4 pts Target-market 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.58 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| 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 | 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 | 71.58 |
| 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
- Strong
- 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 +1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#3
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.5
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +1.3 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.3 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.50 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 | +0.2 |
| 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 | 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 | 71.50 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.5 |
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
- Strong
- 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
- #2–#4
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.4
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.4 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 |
| +1.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.45 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
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 | +1.4 |
| 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 | 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 | 71.45 |
| 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
- Strong
- 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 +1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#8
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.4
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +1.2 pts Target-market 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.2 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.38 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
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 | +0.2 |
| 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 | 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 | 71.38 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- 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 +1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#5
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.3
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +1.1 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.1 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.35 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 | +0.2 |
| 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 | 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 | 71.35 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- 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 +1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#6
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.0 pts |
| 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 | +1.0 |
| 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 | 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 | 70.95 |
| 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
- Strong
- 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 +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#12
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: 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 |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.45 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | +0.5 |
| 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 | 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 | 70.45 |
| 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
- Strong
- 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 +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#9
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.2 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 |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.16 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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.16 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- 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 +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#11
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.2 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 |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.16 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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.16 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- 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 +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#13
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo 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.
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 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.00 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#11
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo 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.
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 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 | 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 | 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 | 70.00 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
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 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.00 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
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
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 | 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 | 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 | 70.00 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #14–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
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 | +1.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| 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 | 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 | 71.90 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectPositive local support
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. HomeSmiles moved from #4 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+1.2 pts
Average across all concepts+0.7 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Population Change From April 2020 Estimate Base To July 20253.2 percent
- Housing Units Authorized By Building Permits In December 2025389 housing units
- Net Increase In Housing Units From 2010 To 202226,354 housing units
Concepts helped most
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+1.8 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.4 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+1.4 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+1.3 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+1.2 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, 4 concepts changed position. Mr. Rooter moved from #3 to #4, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.2 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank4
What we observed
- Share Of Housing Units Built Before World War Ii31 percent of housing units
- Estimated Severely Dilapidated Units Used In Housing Gap Analysis4,078 housing units estimated
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.2 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.2 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.2 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.2 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.2 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
- 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 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #1–#7
#2 Aire ServStable · tested #2–#3
#3 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #2–#4
#4 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #2–#8
#5 Mister Sparky ElectricStable · tested #4–#5
#6 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #1–#6
#7 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #7–#12
#8 Tiger AdjustersStable · tested #8–#9
#9 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #5–#11
#10 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #6–#13
#11 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #9–#11
#12 FASTSIGNSModerately sensitive · tested #10–#12
#13 City WideStable · tested #12–#13
#14 Jan-Pro InternationalStable · tested #14–#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] [23] [1] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [16] [1]Competitive environment: [4] [5] [21] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [2] [17] [18] [19] [23]Transportation, routing, and parking: [9] [8] [10] [7] [5] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [20] [5] [21] [14] [15] [16] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [22] [4] [21] [3]Referral ecosystem: [23] [22] [4] [3]Territory quality: [7] [5] [11] [8] [20] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [21] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand |
|---|---|---|
| #1 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +1.8 pts | +0.1 pts |
| #2 Aire Serv | +1.4 pts | +0.2 pts |
| #3 Mr. Rooter | +1.3 pts | +0.2 pts |
| #4 HomeSmiles | +1.4 pts | — |
| #5 Mister Sparky Electric | +1.2 pts | +0.2 pts |
| #6 ZOOM DRAIN | +1.1 pts | +0.2 pts |
| #7 Workout Anytime | +1.0 pts | — |
| #8 Tiger Adjusters | +0.5 pts | — |
| #9 PuroClean | — | +0.2 pts |
| #10 Rainbow International Restoration | — | +0.2 pts |
| #11 ActionCOACH | — | — |
| #12 FASTSIGNS | — | — |
| #13 City Wide | — | — |
| #14 Jan-Pro International | — | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Aire Serv, Mr. Rooter led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market 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 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, HomeSmiles, ZOOM DRAIN; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Jersey City, 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
70.2Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Jersey City, New Jersey
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.2 to 70.2. PuroClean ranked highest at 70.2. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.2 points on average among the affected concepts.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.0-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.2–70.2
- Category average
- 70.2
PuroClean70.2
Rainbow International Restoration70.2
Metric registry
The 30 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 | 302,013people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales/receipts | Jersey City, New Jersey | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 3.2percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales/receipts | Jersey City, New Jersey | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Households | 125,223households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales/receipts | Jersey City, New Jersey | Context only | [4] |
| Population density in 2020 | 19,835.1people per square mile | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales/receipts | Jersey City, New Jersey | Supports research conclusion | [4] |
| Total retail sales in 2022 | 3,978,211,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales/receipts | Jersey City, New Jersey | Context only | [4] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue in 2022 | 1,759,480,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales/receipts | Jersey City, New Jersey | Context only | [4] |
| Net increase in housing units from 2010 to 2022 | 26,354housing units | Primarily 2010-2022 ACS and city development-pipeline data; report current through 2024 | Jersey City, New Jersey | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Housing-stock growth from 2010 to 2022 | 24percent | Primarily 2010-2022 ACS and city development-pipeline data; report current through 2024 | Jersey City, New Jersey | Context only | [5] |
| Housing units approved or under construction at report time | 14,000housing units approximate | Primarily 2010-2022 ACS and city development-pipeline data; report current through 2024 | Jersey City, New Jersey | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Housing units authorized by building permits in December 2025 | 389housing units | December 2025; U.S. Census Bureau Building Permits Survey | Jersey City, New Jersey | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Share of housing units built before World War II | 31percent of housing units | Primarily 2010-2022 ACS and city development-pipeline data; report current through 2024 | Jersey City, New Jersey | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Estimated severely dilapidated units used in housing-gap analysis | 4,078housing units estimated | Primarily 2010-2022 ACS and city development-pipeline data; report current through 2024 | Jersey City, New Jersey | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Households spending more than 30 percent of income on rent or mortgage | 39percent of households | Primarily 2010-2022 ACS and city development-pipeline data; report current through 2024 | Jersey City, New Jersey | Context only | [5] |
| Workers reporting working from home | 25percent of workers approximate | Primarily 2010-2022 ACS and city development-pipeline data; report current through 2024 | Jersey City, New Jersey | Context only | [5] |
| Workers commuting by public transit | 36percent of workers | Primarily 2010-2022 ACS and city development-pipeline data; report current through 2024 | Jersey City, New Jersey | Supports research conclusion | [5] |
| Average weekday PATH ridership at Jersey City stations in September 2025 | Journal Square: 26,383; Grove Street: 18,802; Exchange Place: 14,229; Newport: 13,334average weekday entries and exits | Calendar year 2025 monthly station ridership | Journal Square, Grove Street, Exchange Place, and Newport PATH stations in Jersey City | Conditional relationship | [7] |
| Commercial motor vehicle on-street overnight parking restriction | restricted hours: 21:00-05:00; covered vehicle types: truck, omnibus, road tractor, semi-tractor, truck tractor, commercial motor vehicle; exceptions: Jersey City licensed taxicabs, Jersey City licensed limousinesregulatory rule | Codified parking restriction adopted November 2016; current applicability checked against 2026 city parking materials | Public streets of Jersey City | Conditional relationship | [9] [8] |
| Camera-assisted parking enforcement pilot targets double parking and loading-zone overstay | target conditions: double parking, bike-lane and crosswalk blockages, extended loading-zone occupancy; target launch window: July-August 2026 subject to approvals and permittingprogram scope | Pilot proposed for summer 2026 | Pilot locations to be selected in Jersey City | Conditional relationship | [10] |
| Locally designated historic districts and landmarks | historic districts: 5; local landmarks: 14; district names: Hamilton Park, Harsimus Cove, Paulus Hook, Van Vorst Park, West Bergen East Lincoln Parkdesignated resources | Current requirements accessed August 2026; page notes Chapter 345 amendments effective February 13, 2025 | Jersey City local historic districts and landmarks | Conditional relationship | [11] |
| Exterior and sign work in designated historic resources requires preservation approval before work | required approval: Certificate of No Effect, Certificate of Appropriateness; covered work: development, construction, alteration, rehabilitation, repair of signs, buildings, or propertyregulatory rule | Current requirements accessed August 2026; page notes Chapter 345 amendments effective February 13, 2025 | Designated Jersey City historic districts and landmark buildings | Conditional relationship | [11] |
| Non-residential development fee for covered new construction and additions | new unimproved lot rate: 2.5; addition rate: 2.5; basis: equalized assessed value as specified by ordinance and state law; collection timing: 50 percent at building permit; remainder at certificate of occupancy; not applied to: alterations, change in use within existing footprint, reconstruction, renovations, repairs; statutory exemptions apply: yespercent and collection rule | Ordinance adopted June 14, 2023; current state NRDF framework separately reviewed | Non-residential development in Jersey City subject to Ordinance 23-048 and Statewide NRDF Act | Context only | [12] [13] |
| Updated maximum water and sewer connection fees per Equivalent Dwelling Unit | water maximum per edu: 4,516; sewer maximum per edu: 3,691; phase in start: 2026-06-01; large commercial project example prior fee: 27,940; large commercial project example reassessed fee: 67,556usd and effective date | Fee update announced May 28, 2026; phased implementation beginning June 1, 2026 | Jersey City water and sewer connections | Context only | [14] |
| Flood-risk disclosure is required before covered sales and rental leases | effective date: 2024-03-20; seller disclosure scope: FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area, FEMA Moderate Flood Hazard Area, known flood risk/history; landlord disclosure scope: FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area, FEMA Moderate Flood Hazard Area, known flooding of rental premises or associated spacesregulatory rule | Disclosure requirements effective March 20, 2024; current guidance accessed August 2026 | New Jersey, including Jersey City | Context only | [15] |
| Rutgers municipal flood-risk framework provides FEMA and future sea-level-rise parcel exposure scenarios | current scenarios: FEMA 1% annual chance flood, FEMA 0.2% annual chance flood, NOAA nuisance flooding; future scenarios: FEMA 1% annual chance flood plus 3 feet, 2050 projected 2-foot sea-level rise, 2100 projected 5-foot sea-level rise; municipal level tool available: yesscenario framework | Current FEMA hazard areas and 2050/2100 sea-level-rise scenarios using NJ MOD-IV parcel data | New Jersey; Jersey City exposure requires municipal or parcel query | Context only | [16] |
| Selected major occupational mean hourly wages in the New York-Newark-Jersey City metro | all occupations: 41.5; food preparation and serving: 22.22; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: 23.02; management: 94.64usd per hour | May 2025 | New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ MSA | Context only | [17] |
| New Jersey minimum wage for most employees effective January 1, 2026 | 15.92usd per hour | Minimum wage effective January 1, 2026 | New Jersey | Context only | [18] |
| Jersey City office-market asking rent and vacancy for properties at least 25,000 square feet | average asking rent: 42.54; vacancy rate: 23.59; asking rent yoy change: -12.44usd per square foot and percent | January 1-December 31, 2025 city-level office properties of at least 25,000 square feet | Jersey City office properties at least 25,000 square feet | Conditional relationship | [20] |
| Business opening process includes zoning review, construction/fit-out approvals when applicable, certificate of occupancy review, and category-specific licenses | zoning review, construction permit or tenant fit-out when applicable, CO or CCO review, category-specific business or health licenses when applicableprocess steps | Current business opening, certificate-of-occupancy, permitting, and licensing guidance accessed August 2026 | Jersey City, New Jersey | Context only | [21] |
| Municipal contracting uses formal solicitations and BidNet for bids valued over $53,000 | public bidnet threshold: 53,000; solicitation types: quotes, bids, RFP, RFQusd threshold and process | Current municipal procurement process accessed August 2026 | City of Jersey City procurement | Context only | [22] |
| Jersey City Medical Center institutional scale | beds: 352; employees: 2,580; physicians: 835; nurses: 764; annual admissions: 17,000; annual ed visits: 100,000institutional vital statistics | Vital statistics for 2023; institutional profile current in 2024 fact sheet | Jersey City Medical Center, Jersey City | Context only | [23] |
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, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors reached 71.90 after target-market demand +1.8 pts and property replacement-cycle demand +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.
- 1Utility Delta Audit: Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Opportunities in Local U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Structural Constraint and Jurisdictional Risk AuditInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - 142Internal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4QuickFacts: Jersey City city, New Jersey
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households, Population density in 2020, and Total retail sales in 2022
- 5Housing Jersey City: Assessing Current and Future Gaps
Used for: Net increase in housing units from 2010 to 2022, Housing-stock growth from 2010 to 2022, Housing units approved or under construction at report time, Share of housing units built before World War II, and Estimated severely dilapidated units used in housing-gap analysis
- 6New Jersey Building Permits — December 2025
Used for: Housing units authorized by building permits in December 2025
- 72025 PATH Monthly Ridership Report
Used for: Average weekday PATH ridership at Jersey City stations in September 2025
- 8Parking
Used for: Commercial motor vehicle on-street overnight parking restriction
- 9Ordinance No. 16-171 — Chapter 332 commercial motor vehicle parking restrictions
Used for: Commercial motor vehicle on-street overnight parking restriction
- 10Jersey City To Launch Camera-Assisted Parking Enforcement Pilot Program To Bring Safety Back To City Streets
Used for: Camera-assisted parking enforcement pilot targets double parking and loading-zone overstay
- 11Historic Preservation
Used for: Locally designated historic districts and landmarks and Exterior and sign work in designated historic resources requires preservation approval before work
- 12Ordinance 23-048 — Development Fees to Fund Affordable Housing
Used for: Non-residential development fee for covered new construction and additions
- 13Non-Residential Development Fees
Used for: Non-residential development fee for covered new construction and additions
- 14Mayor Solomon & JCMUA Announce First Update To Water And Sewer Connection Fees For Developers In Over 25 Years
Used for: Updated maximum water and sewer connection fees per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
- 15Flood Disclosure Law
Used for: Flood-risk disclosure is required before covered sales and rental leases
- 16Current and Future Flood Exposure to New Jersey Properties and Associated Assessed Property Value at Risk
Used for: Rutgers municipal flood-risk framework provides FEMA and future sea-level-rise parcel exposure scenarios
- 17Occupational Employment and Wages in New York-Newark-Jersey City — May 2025
Used for: Selected major occupational mean hourly wages in the New York-Newark-Jersey City metro
- 18New Jersey’s Minimum Wage to Increase to $15.92/Hour for Most Employees on Jan. 1
Used for: New Jersey minimum wage for most employees effective January 1, 2026
- 19
- 20Jersey City Office Price per Sqft and Office Market Trends
Used for: Jersey City office-market asking rent and vacancy for properties at least 25,000 square feet
- 21Businesses
Used for: Business opening process includes zoning review, construction/fit-out approvals when applicable, certificate of occupancy review, and category-specific licenses
- 22Purchasing
Used for: Municipal contracting uses formal solicitations and BidNet for bids valued over $53,000
- 23Jersey City Medical Center Fact Sheet 2024
Used for: Jersey City Medical Center institutional scale
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.