70.1 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in North Las Vegas, Nevada
We compared 14 franchise concepts for North Las Vegas, Nevada. Local business 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
22Sources used
17Primary sources
23Local 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 12 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 11 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for North Las Vegas, Nevada
HomeSmiles, City Wide, and FASTSIGNS produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Local business demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 10 exposed concepts, adding 0.9 points on average. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing local business demand moved it from #2 to #13 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 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.9 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 71.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.8 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 71.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 71.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.3 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | 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 |
| 10 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in North Las Vegas, Nevada
Large industrial and logistics footprint supports local commercial account demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 0.9 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Apex Industrial Park current and planned development scale: park acres: 18,000; developable acres approximate: 5,000; industrial sqft completed: 5,500,000; industrial sqft under construction: 3,800,000; industrial sqft planned: 19,200,000; industrial sqft completed under construction or planned: 28,500,000 mixed land and building metrics. [11] [4]
North Las Vegas population increased 14.3 percent from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, while assessor counts show 2.47 percent housing-unit growth from July 2023 to July 2024.
Rapid city and housing growth supports a larger resident service base, but it should not be interpreted as uniform access or a frictionless territory. Two active arterial projects create route-specific delays, and the city publishes distinct industrial, redevelopment, gaming, air-terminal, zoning, and street-plan geographies. Site and route diligence therefore remain necessary for customer-facing and vehicle-based concepts. [4] [5] [6] [14] [15] [18]
recurring-commercial-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 property replacement-cycle demand. [4] [11] [5] [6] [10]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Recent housing-unit growth expands the addressable household service base1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
Large industrial and logistics footprint supports local commercial account demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Housing stock centered in the early 2000s is entering a midlife mechanical replacement window1 modeled effect
Housing-system replacement demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Active arterial reconstruction creates temporary route and access friction on specific corridors1 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 alignment71.9
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.9 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 | +1.9 pts | |
| Net local movement | +1.87 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 | +1.9 |
| 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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 71.87 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#8
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.8
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
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 |
| Net local movement | +1.78 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 | +1.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 71.78 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.8 |
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
- 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
- #2–#13
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.6
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +1.6 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.62 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 | +1.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 71.62 |
| 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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#11
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.6
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.6 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.56 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 | +1.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 71.56 |
| 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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#14
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.5
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +1.2 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.1 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.54 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 | +1.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 71.54 |
| 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
- Adequate
- 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
- #1–#7
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.4
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
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 | +1.44 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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 71.44 |
| 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 +1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#10
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.4
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
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 |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.41 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 | +1.3 |
| 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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 71.41 |
| 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 +1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#7
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.4
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
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 |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.35 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 | +0.3 |
| 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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 71.4 |
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 +1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#8
#9Tier 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 |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.35 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 | +0.3 |
| 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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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
- #2–#9
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.01 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 | +0.8 |
| 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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 71.01 |
| 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 +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#10
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +0.6 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 |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.60 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 | 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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.60 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- 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 +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 pts | |
| Net local movement | +0.50 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 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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.50 |
| 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
- #9–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.1 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 |
| +0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.09 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 | +0.1 |
| 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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.09 |
| 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
- 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 +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.1 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 |
| +0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.09 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 | +0.1 |
| 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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.09 |
| 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
- 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 +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated HomeSmiles
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 | +1.9 |
| 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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 71.87 |
| 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 12 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #3 to #13, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted12 of 14
Average among affected+1.2 pts
Average across all concepts+1.0 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Apex Industrial Park Current And Planned Development Scalepark acres: 18,000; developable acres approximate: 5,000; industrial sqft completed: 5,500,000; industrial sqft under construction: 3,800,000; industrial sqft planned: 19,200,000; industrial sqft completed under construction or planned: 28,500,000 mixed land and building metrics
- Transportation And Warehousing Receipts Or Revenue In 2022704,951 thousand usd
- Total Housing Units On July 1, 202395,874 housing units
Concepts helped most
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.9 pts
City WideFacility management
+1.8 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+1.6 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.6 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+1.4 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #5 to #8, 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 rank6
What we observed
- Total Housing Units On July 1, 202498,245 housing units
- Southern Nevada Municipal Water Hardnessparts per million: 280; grains per gallon: 16; classification: very hard mixed water hardness units
- Las Vegas Valley Heat Exposure In 2025annual high f: 112; days max at or above 90f: 137; cooling degree days: 4,015 mixed climate metrics
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.4 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.3 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.3 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.2 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.1 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Labor and staffing frictionNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- 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 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #1–#8
#2 City WideHighly sensitive · tested #2–#13
#3 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #3–#11
#4 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #4–#14
#5 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #1–#7
#6 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #5–#10
#7 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsModerately sensitive · tested #5–#7
#8 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #3–#8
#9 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #2–#9
#10 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #4–#10
#11 Workout AnytimeStable · tested #11–#12
#12 Tiger AdjustersModerately sensitive · tested #9–#12
#13 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #6–#13
#14 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #7–#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] [10] [11] [21] [22] [1] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [7] [6] [8] [9] [1]Competitive environment: [4] [10] [11] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [13] [12] [2] [1] [21]Transportation, routing, and parking: [14] [15] [18] [3] [2]Real estate and site feasibility: [10] [11] [18] [16] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [4] [22] [21] [10] [3]Referral ecosystem: [21] [22] [4] [3]Territory quality: [18] [19] [10] [11] [14] [15] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [16] [17] [18] [20] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand |
|---|---|---|
| #1 HomeSmiles | +1.9 pts | — |
| #2 City Wide | +1.8 pts | — |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +1.6 pts | — |
| #4 Jan-Pro International | +1.6 pts | — |
| #5 Aire Serv | +1.2 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #6 ActionCOACH | +1.4 pts | — |
| #7 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +1.3 pts | +0.1 pts |
| #8 Mr. Rooter | +1.1 pts | +0.3 pts |
| #9 ZOOM DRAIN | +1.1 pts | +0.3 pts |
| #10 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.8 pts | +0.2 pts |
| #11 Workout Anytime | +0.6 pts | — |
| #12 Tiger Adjusters | +0.5 pts | — |
| #13 PuroClean | — | +0.1 pts |
| #14 Rainbow International Restoration | — | +0.1 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
HomeSmiles, City Wide, FASTSIGNS 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 HomeSmiles, City Wide, FASTSIGNS; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in North Las Vegas, Nevada
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.1Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in North Las Vegas, Nevada
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.1 to 70.1. PuroClean ranked highest at 70.1. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.1 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
- 70.1–70.1
- Category average
- 70.1
PuroClean70.1
Rainbow International Restoration70.1
Metric registry
The 23 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 | 296,653people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 economic measures | North Las Vegas, Nevada | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 1, 2025 | 14.3percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 economic measures | North Las Vegas, Nevada | Supports research conclusion | [4] |
| Estimated households in the 2020-2024 ACS period | 88,909households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 economic measures | North Las Vegas, Nevada | Context only | [4] |
| Transportation and warehousing receipts or revenue in 2022 | 704,951thousand usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 economic measures | North Las Vegas, Nevada | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Total housing units on July 1, 2023 | 95,874housing units | July 1, 2023 final certification for FY 2023-24 estimates | North Las Vegas, Nevada | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Total housing units on July 1, 2024 | 98,245housing units | July 1, 2024 final certification for FY 2024-25 estimates | North Las Vegas, Nevada | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Housing-unit growth from July 1, 2023 to July 1, 2024 | 2.47percent | July 1, 2023 final certification for FY 2023-24 estimates | North Las Vegas, Nevada | Used in scoring | [5] [6] |
| Median year structure built reported from 2024 ACS 5-year data | 2,003year | 2024 ACS 5-Year Estimates as identified by the publisher | North Las Vegas, Nevada | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Southern Nevada municipal water hardness | parts per million: 280; grains per gallon: 16; classification: very hardmixed water hardness units | Current guidance accessed August 2026 | Southern Nevada municipal water system serving North Las Vegas | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Las Vegas Valley heat exposure in 2025 | annual high f: 112; days max at or above 90f: 137; cooling degree days: 4,015mixed climate metrics | Calendar year 2025 | Las Vegas Valley official climate station; regional proxy for North Las Vegas | Used in scoring | [9] |
| North Las Vegas industrial submarket conditions in Q2 2026 | total inventory sqft: 78,174,342; vacancy rate percent: 9.9; previous vacancy rate percent: 10.7; current quarter net absorption sqft: 633,613; ytd net absorption sqft: 42,412; under construction sqft: 12,000; average direct asking rate psf nnn: 1.01mixed industrial market metrics | Second quarter 2026 | Colliers North Las Vegas industrial submarket | Used in scoring | [10] |
| North Las Vegas incubator, flex, and light-industrial inventory in Q2 2026 | incubator: inventory sqft: 887,177, vacancy rate percent: 7.9, average direct asking rate psf nnn: 0.95, definition note: bay sizes smaller than 3,500 square feet and no dock-high loading; flex: inventory sqft: 806,509, vacancy rate percent: 4.4, average direct asking rate psf nnn: 1.08, definition note: no dock-high loading and parking above 3.5 per 1,000 square feet; light industrial: inventory sqft: 8,263,066, vacancy rate percent: 2.7, average direct asking rate psf nnn: 1.18mixed industrial market metrics | Second quarter 2026 | Colliers North Las Vegas industrial submarket | Context only | [10] |
| Apex Industrial Park current and planned development scale | park acres: 18,000; developable acres approximate: 5,000; industrial sqft completed: 5,500,000; industrial sqft under construction: 3,800,000; industrial sqft planned: 19,200,000; industrial sqft completed under construction or planned: 28,500,000mixed land and building metrics | Current development status accessed August 2026 | Apex Industrial Park, North Las Vegas | Used in scoring | [11] |
| North Las Vegas local-area unemployment in June 2026 | labor force: 146,299; employed: 138,219; unemployed: 8,080; unemployment rate percent: 5.5mixed labor market metrics | June 2026 | North Las Vegas, Nevada | Context only | [13] |
| Selected occupational employment shares and mean hourly wages in May 2025 | all occupations mean hourly usd: 29.23; food preparation and serving: employment share percent: 14.7, mean hourly usd: 18.41; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: employment share percent: 5.3, mean hourly usd: 20.82; construction and extraction: employment share percent: 5.1, mean hourly usd: 32.53; installation maintenance and repair: employment share percent: 3.6, mean hourly usd: 30.16; transportation and material moving: employment share percent: 9.3, mean hourly usd: 23.93mixed occupational metrics | May 2025; release reissued June 24, 2026 for sample-size and response-rate metadata | Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas, Nevada | Context only | [12] |
| Lake Mead Boulevard improvement project creates active lane restrictions | limits: Losee Road to Simmons Street; start date: 2024-11-04; scheduled completion: fall 2026; project budget usd: 37,700,000; minimum open lanes each direction: 1; motorist guidance: expect delaysproject conditions | Construction scheduled November 4, 2024 through fall 2026 | Lake Mead Boulevard, Losee Road to Simmons Street | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| Las Vegas Boulevard North improvement project creates active lane closures and traffic shifts | limits: East Tonopah Avenue to East Carey Avenue; start date: 2026-04-06; expected duration months approximate: 18; project budget usd: 38,000,000; traffic effects: lane closures, traffic shiftsproject conditions | Construction beginning April 6, 2026; approximately 18-month duration | Las Vegas Boulevard North, East Tonopah Avenue to East Carey Avenue | Conditional relationship | [15] |
| Published permit, plan-review, and transportation-tax fee components | administrative fee per permit usd: 75; commercial transportation tax usd per sqft: 1; residential transportation tax usd per unit: 1,000; park impact fee residential only usd per sqft: 0.36; plan check percent of permit fee: 65; planning zoning review percent of permit fee: 10; fire review usd: 100; additional plan review revisions usd per hour: 80; additional values omittedmixed fee schedule | Current fee guidance accessed August 2026 | North Las Vegas, Nevada | Context only | [16] |
| Commercial and industrial sign packages are subject to codified design and permitting constraints | wall sign maximum building elevation area percent: 15; unified sign plan process exists: yes; site specific review relevance: yesregulatory conditions | Current codified zoning text accessed August 2026 | North Las Vegas, Nevada | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| North Las Vegas maintains multiple distinct planning and overlay geographies | published maps: zoning, land use, gaming enterprise district, air terminal environs overlay, redevelopment areas, master streets and highways; area planning framework exists: yesplanning resources | Current planning resources accessed August 2026 | North Las Vegas, Nevada | Conditional relationship | [18] [19] |
| Nonrestricted gaming licenses are subject to state gaming-enterprise-district siting rules and local district mapping | state rule: Nevada Gaming Commission approval of a nonrestricted license is restricted outside a designated gaming enterprise district under NRS 463.308 and related provisions; north las vegas district map published: yesregulatory conditions | Current statutory text accessed August 2026 | Nevada statutory framework and North Las Vegas Gaming Enterprise District map | Context only | [20] [18] |
| North Las Vegas VA Medical Center has public employment and vendor-contractor pathways | north las vegas medical center named: yes; employment fields named: clinical, administrative, support; vendor contractor contact path published: yesinstitutional context | Current institutional employment and vendor guidance accessed August 2026 | North Las Vegas VA Medical Center and VA Southern Nevada Healthcare System | Context only | [21] |
| City procurement opportunities are published through a formal vendor and bidding system | nevada government emarketplace used: yes; public bid opportunities available: yesprocurement context | Current procurement guidance accessed August 2026 | City of North Las Vegas | 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, HomeSmiles reached 71.87 after target-market demand +1.9 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 U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Municipal Hostility Index: Forensic Capitalization of Structural Constraints and Economic Choke PointsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - 162(7).csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4QuickFacts: North Las Vegas city, Nevada
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 1, 2025, Estimated households in the 2020-2024 ACS period, and Transportation and warehousing receipts or revenue in 2022
- 5Clark County Assessor Housing Unit Counts for July 1, 2023
Used for: Total housing units on July 1, 2023 and Housing-unit growth from July 1, 2023 to July 1, 2024
- 6Clark County Assessor Housing Unit Counts for July 1, 2024
Used for: Total housing units on July 1, 2024 and Housing-unit growth from July 1, 2023 to July 1, 2024
- 7North Las Vegas, NV Population, Income, Rent and Demographics
Used for: Median year structure built reported from 2024 ACS 5-year data
- 8Home treatment systems
Used for: Southern Nevada municipal water hardness
- 9Las Vegas NV Climate Summary for the Year of 2025
Used for: Las Vegas Valley heat exposure in 2025
- 10Las Vegas Industrial Market Report 2026 Q2
Used for: North Las Vegas industrial submarket conditions in Q2 2026 and North Las Vegas incubator, flex, and light-industrial inventory in Q2 2026
- 11Apex Industrial Park
Used for: Apex Industrial Park current and planned development scale
- 12Occupational Employment and Wages in Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas - May 2025
Used for: Selected occupational employment shares and mean hourly wages in May 2025
- 13June 2026 Sub-State Press Release and Report
Used for: North Las Vegas local-area unemployment in June 2026
- 14Lake Mead Blvd.: Losee Rd. To Simmons St. Improvement Project
Used for: Lake Mead Boulevard improvement project creates active lane restrictions
- 15Construction on Las Vegas Boulevard Improvement Project Begins
Used for: Las Vegas Boulevard North improvement project creates active lane closures and traffic shifts
- 16Permit Application Center
Used for: Published permit, plan-review, and transportation-tax fee components
- 17North Las Vegas Code of Ordinances, Title 17, Chapter 17.24 Development Standards
Used for: Commercial and industrial sign packages are subject to codified design and permitting constraints
- 18Maps and Resources
Used for: North Las Vegas maintains multiple distinct planning and overlay geographies and Nonrestricted gaming licenses are subject to state gaming-enterprise-district siting rules and local district mapping
- 19Advanced Planning
Used for: North Las Vegas maintains multiple distinct planning and overlay geographies
- 20Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 463 - Licensing and Control of Gaming
Used for: Nonrestricted gaming licenses are subject to state gaming-enterprise-district siting rules and local district mapping
- 21Work With Us - VA Southern Nevada Health Care
Used for: North Las Vegas VA Medical Center has public employment and vendor-contractor pathways
- 22Purchasing
Used for: City procurement opportunities are published through a formal vendor and bidding system
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.