69.4 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Appleton, Wisconsin
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Appleton, Wisconsin. Replacement and repair demand was a leading positive mechanism. Skilled-trade labor competition was a leading operating constraint.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
21Sources used
13Primary 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
0.6 points average among 7 affected concepts
1.1 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 13 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Appleton, Wisconsin
City Wide, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, and ActionCOACH produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Replacement and repair demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 7 exposed concepts, adding 0.3 points on average. Skilled-trade labor competition was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 1.1 points on average. Mister Sparky Electric was especially relationship-sensitive: removing skilled-trade labor competition moved it from #14 to #2 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 69.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.7 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 69.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 69.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 69.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 69.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.8 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 69.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Appleton, Wisconsin
A large housing base with a 1971 median construction year supports replacement-oriented property services
This relationship affected 7 concepts and added 0.3 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Total housing units in the 2024 ACS profile: 31,280 housing units. [5] [4]
Above-national trade employment concentration and wages indicate competition for overlapping technicians
This relationship affected 10 concepts and reduced 1.1 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Construction and extraction occupational share and mean hourly wage: appleton employment share percent: 5.8; us employment share percent: 4.1; appleton mean hourly wage usd: 35.12; us mean hourly wage usd: 31.42 mixed percent and usd per hour. [9]
skilled-trade-route-service
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was property replacement-cycle demand, while the main constraint was labor and staffing friction. [7] [8] [9] [5] [4] [10] [6] [1]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large health-care activity and the Fox Cities hospital network support institutional service demand1 modeled effect
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
Appleton MSA unemployment below the U.S. rate indicates a relatively tight hiring environment1 modeled effect
Broad labor scarcityLabor and staffing friction
Above-national trade employment concentration and wages indicate competition for overlapping technicians1 modeled effect
Skilled-trade labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
Overnight public-street parking restrictions can constrain street-dependent fleet staging, especially during snow emergencies1 modeled effect
Winter parking and access pressureTransportation, 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 alignment70.4
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.44 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 | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.44 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#4
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.06 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.06 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#7
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.01 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.99 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#12
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.7 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 pts | |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Winter parking and access pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| 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 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.55 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#10
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 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 | 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 | -0.5 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.55 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#13
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.1 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.54 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
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.1 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.46 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#9
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.7 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.4 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 pts | |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Winter parking and access pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.55 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.4 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.45 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#9
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.7 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.4 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 pts | |
| Net local movement | -0.62 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
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.4 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.38 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#10
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.2
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.8 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.77 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 | -0.8 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.23 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#14
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.2
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.1 pts | |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.82 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.1 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.18 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#11
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.9
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.9 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.0 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.0 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.9 pts | |
| Net local movement | -1.10 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.9 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.0 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.90 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#14
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.7
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.7 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.7 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.31 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 | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.7 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.69 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.6
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.7 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.7 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.38 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.7 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.62 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.6
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.9 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.9 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Winter parking and access pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -1.39 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
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 | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.9 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.61 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.44 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 6 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 9 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #4 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted6 of 14
Average among affected+0.3 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank9
What we observed
- Health Care And Social Assistance Receipts/revenue1,304,622 thousand usd
- Education And Health Services Payroll Employment In June 202618.3 thousand jobs
- Thedacare Fox Cities Service Area Scaleemployees: 2,200; providers minimum: 750; acute care beds: 298; communities: 19 institutional counts
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.7 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+0.5 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.3 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.3 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.1 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #11 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.6 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Total Housing Units In The 2024 Acs Profile31,280 housing units
- Owner Occupied Housing Unit Rate67.1 percent
- March 2026 Appleton Area Temperature Profileaverage daily max f: 46.4; average daily min f: 28.2; monthly low f: 3 degrees fahrenheit
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.9 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.7 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.7 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.5 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.4 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 14 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #11 to #1, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-1.1 pts
Average across all concepts-1.1 pts
Concepts changing rank14
What we observed
- Unemployment Rate In June 20263 percent
- Appleton Msa Unemployment Rate Relative To The U.s. Rate In June 2026-1.4 percentage points
- Construction And Extraction Occupational Share And Mean Hourly Wageappleton employment share percent: 5.8; us employment share percent: 4.1; appleton mean hourly wage usd: 35.12; us mean hourly wage usd: 31.42 mixed percent and usd per hour
Concepts challenged most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-2.0 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-1.9 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-1.7 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.7 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.4 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- 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 City WideModerately sensitive · tested #1–#4
#2 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #1–#7
#3 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #2–#12
#4 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #4–#10
#5 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #4–#13
#6 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #5–#9
#7 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #2–#9
#8 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #3–#10
#9 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #7–#14
#10 HomeSmilesModerately sensitive · tested #8–#11
#11 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #1–#14
#12 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #8–#12
#13 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #9–#13
#14 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #6–#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] [7] [13] [1] [2]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [4] [6] [10] [1]Competitive environment: [21] [4] [3] [1]Labor and staffing friction: [7] [8] [9] [13] [2] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [11] [12] [20] [17] [10] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [15] [16] [18] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [21] [4] [3] [1]Referral ecosystem: [13] [14] [7] [4] [2]Territory quality: [17] [4] [12] [20] [3] [1]Regulatory and operating friction: [18] [19] [11] [12] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +0.7 pts | — | -0.3 pts |
| #2 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | +0.4 pts | -0.3 pts |
| #3 ActionCOACH | +0.1 pts | — | -0.1 pts |
| #4 FASTSIGNS | +0.3 pts | — | -0.7 pts |
| #5 Tiger Adjusters | — | — | -0.5 pts |
| #6 Jan-Pro International | +0.5 pts | — | -1.1 pts |
| #7 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.1 pts | +0.7 pts | -1.4 pts |
| #8 PuroClean | — | +0.7 pts | -1.4 pts |
| #9 Workout Anytime | — | — | -0.8 pts |
| #10 HomeSmiles | +0.3 pts | — | -1.1 pts |
| #11 Aire Serv | — | +0.9 pts | -2.0 pts |
| #12 ZOOM DRAIN | — | +0.4 pts | -1.7 pts |
| #13 Mr. Rooter | — | +0.4 pts | -1.7 pts |
| #14 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.5 pts | -1.9 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, ActionCOACH led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from property replacement-cycle demand while remaining less exposed to labor and staffing friction. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, ActionCOACH, FASTSIGNS; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Appleton, Wisconsin
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.4Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Appleton, Wisconsin
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.4 to 69.5. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 69.5. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.7 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 1.4 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.1-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 69.4–69.5
- Category average
- 69.4
Rainbow International Restoration69.5
PuroClean69.4
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 | 75,452people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic measures | Appleton, Wisconsin | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | -0.3percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic measures | Appleton, Wisconsin | Context only | [4] |
| Total housing units in the 2024 ACS profile | 31,280housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates | Appleton, Wisconsin | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate | 67.1percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic measures | Appleton, Wisconsin | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Median construction year of Appleton housing | 1,971year | Current demographic aggregation accessed August 2026 | Appleton, Wisconsin | Used in scoring | [6] [1] |
| Mean travel time to work | 19.3minutes | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic measures | Appleton, Wisconsin workers age 16 and older | Context only | [4] [1] |
| Median household income in 2024 dollars | 80,483usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic measures | Appleton, Wisconsin | Context only | [4] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue | 1,304,622thousand usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic measures | Appleton, Wisconsin | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Retail sales | 1,676,245thousand usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic measures | Appleton, Wisconsin | Context only | [4] |
| Unemployment rate in June 2026 | 3percent | June 2026 labor force and payroll employment | Appleton, Wisconsin MSA | Used in scoring | [7] [8] |
| Appleton MSA unemployment rate relative to the U.S. rate in June 2026 | -1.4percentage points | June 2026 | Appleton MSA versus United States | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Education and health services payroll employment in June 2026 | 18.3thousand jobs | June 2026 labor force and payroll employment | Appleton, Wisconsin MSA | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Construction and extraction occupational share and mean hourly wage | appleton employment share percent: 5.8; us employment share percent: 4.1; appleton mean hourly wage usd: 35.12; us mean hourly wage usd: 31.42mixed percent and usd per hour | May 2025 | Appleton MSA versus United States | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Installation, maintenance, and repair occupational share and mean hourly wage | appleton employment share percent: 4.8; us employment share percent: 3.9; appleton mean hourly wage usd: 31.06; us mean hourly wage usd: 30.44mixed percent and usd per hour | May 2025 | Appleton MSA versus United States | Used in scoring | [9] |
| ThedaCare Fox Cities service-area scale | employees: 2,200; providers minimum: 750; acute care beds: 298; communities: 19institutional counts | Current network profile accessed August 2026 | Fox Cities including Appleton and Neenah | Used in scoring | [13] [2] |
| March 2026 Appleton-area temperature profile | average daily max f: 46.4; average daily min f: 28.2; monthly low f: 3degrees fahrenheit | March 2026 | Appleton-area station ATW | Used in scoring | [10] [1] |
| Overnight on-street parking restriction and permission limits | prohibited start local: 02:00; prohibited end local: 05:00; permission dates max per calendar month: 7; permission available during snow emergency: norule parameters | Current ordinance guidance accessed August 2026 | City of Appleton | Conditional relationship | [11] [3] |
| Appleton publishes location-specific parking and loading controls | mapped control types: loading zones, metered parking, time limited parking, no parking conditionsmapped regulation types | Current GIS layers accessed August 2026 | Appleton, Wisconsin | Conditional relationship | [12] |
| Fox Valley industrial absorption and construction pipeline in Q1 2025 | net absorption sqft: 404,598; under construction sqft: 827,895; new deliveries in quarter sqft: 0; appleton example lease sqft: 317,910square feet | Q1 2025 | Fox Valley industrial market; Appleton lease example at 1601 S Lynndale Drive | Context only | [15] |
| Appleton flex-space listings visible in a current commercial listing search | listing count: 11; example sizes sqft: 3,000, 5,536, 8,800, 12,000; listing status: dynamiclistings and square feet | Live listings indexed in August 2026 | Appleton, Wisconsin | Context only | [16] |
| Appleton city operations sit within a multi-jurisdiction Fox Cities context | counties with city land: 3; surrounding municipalities context count: 10jurisdiction counts | Current mapping resources accessed August 2026 | Appleton and surrounding Fox Cities municipalities | Context only | [17] |
| Zoning and building-permit compliance depends on the parcel, use, and project scope | zoning data available by location: yes; building permit requires city and state code compliance: yes; inspection component: yesregulatory framework flags | Current zoning polygons accessed August 2026 | Appleton, Wisconsin | Context only | [18] [19] |
| County Business Patterns provides detailed NAICS establishment and employment counts at subnational geographies | industry detail: 2-through-6-digit NAICS; geographies: county, metropolitan area, ZIP code; measures: establishments, employment, first quarter payroll, annual payrolldataset dimensions | Calendar year 2023 | United States subnational geographies relevant to Appleton and the Fox Cities | Context only | [21] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects that apply without an unresolved site, territory, customer, or project gate.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 70.44 after target-market demand +0.7 pts and labor and staffing friction -0.3 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.
- 1I 182(10).docx — supplied multi-city structural operating-fit researchInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Median construction year of Appleton housing, Mean travel time to work, and March 2026 Appleton-area temperature profile
- 2Municipal Forensic Audit: Structural Constraints and Deal-Killer AnalysisInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: ThedaCare Fox Cities service-area scale
- 3Franchise data - remake - 181(9).csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Overnight on-street parking restriction and permission limits
- 4QuickFacts: Appleton city, Wisconsin
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Owner-occupied housing unit rate, Mean travel time to work, and Median household income in 2024 dollars
- 5Profile: Appleton city, Wisconsin
Used for: Total housing units in the 2024 ACS profile
- 6Appleton, WI Demographics and Housing
Used for: Median construction year of Appleton housing
- 7Appleton, WI Economy at a Glance
Used for: Unemployment rate in June 2026 and Education and health services payroll employment in June 2026
- 8Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment — Unemployment Rates for Metropolitan Areas
Used for: Unemployment rate in June 2026 and Appleton MSA unemployment rate relative to the U.S. rate in June 2026
- 9Occupational Employment and Wages in Appleton — May 2025
Used for: Construction and extraction occupational share and mean hourly wage and Installation, maintenance, and repair occupational share and mean hourly wage
- 10Climatological Report (Daily): Appleton, Wisconsin (ATW)
Used for: March 2026 Appleton-area temperature profile
- 11Overnight Parking Permission
Used for: Overnight on-street parking restriction and permission limits
- 12City of Appleton Traffic Parking GIS Layers
Used for: Appleton publishes location-specific parking and loading controls
- 13Fox Cities
Used for: ThedaCare Fox Cities service-area scale
- 14
- 15Fox Valley Industrial Market Report Q1 2025
Used for: Fox Valley industrial absorption and construction pipeline in Q1 2025
- 16Appleton, WI Flex Space for Lease
Used for: Appleton flex-space listings visible in a current commercial listing search
- 17City of Appleton GIS Website
Used for: Appleton city operations sit within a multi-jurisdiction Fox Cities context
- 18City of Appleton Zoning Feature Layer
Used for: Zoning and building-permit compliance depends on the parcel, use, and project scope
- 19City of Appleton Online Building Permit
Used for: Zoning and building-permit compliance depends on the parcel, use, and project scope
- 20
- 21County Business Patterns: 2023
Used for: County Business Patterns provides detailed NAICS establishment and employment counts at subnational geographies
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.