Most impactful relationship #1
Local condition$22.91Food preparation and serving mean hourly…
Operating exposureHigh local occupational wage cost environ…
13 of 14 concepts affected93% of concepts assessed
Aire ServMr. RooterZOOM DRAINHomeSmiles+9
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Fremont, California
Compare 14 franchise concepts in Fremont and see how $1,403,800 median owner-occupied home value shaped local-alignment scores.
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.
Bottom line
Rainbow International Restoration ranks first among the concepts assessed for Fremont, California
We compared 14 franchise concepts against Fremont's local operating conditions. Fremont's $1,403,800 median owner-occupied home value created one of the strongest positive local signals for concepts exposed to high homeowner property-value and equity capacity. [2] [1] The $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations across San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont metro area created one of the more important local constraints for concepts exposed to high local occupational wage cost environment. [4]
Rainbow International Restoration scored 70.62. It leads City Wide Facility Solutions by 0.08 points. The documented median owner-occupied home value in Fremont is $1,403,800. For Rainbow International Restoration, this was the largest positive contribution, adding 0.46 points through high homeowner property-value and equity capacity. [2] [1] Across the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont metro area, the mean wage for building and grounds occupations was $25.46/hour in May 2025. For Rainbow International Restoration, this was the largest negative contribution, reducing the score by 0.22 points through high local occupational wage cost environment. [4] The largest direct difference versus City Wide Facility Solutions came from Fremont's $1,403,800 median owner-occupied home value, which contributed +0.46 points to Rainbow International Restoration versus 0.00 points to City Wide Facility Solutions. [2] [1]
Evidence chain
- Local condition: The documented median owner-occupied home value in Fremont is $1,403,800. [2] [1]
- Why it matters to this model: Rainbow International Restoration's operating model revenue is concentrated in fewer, higher-value transactions, giving it direct exposure to high homeowner property-value and equity capacity.
- Modeled consequence: The model assigned +0.46 points through high homeowner property-value and equity capacity.
What this means: this is a deterministic comparison of documented local conditions against resolved operating-model exposures. It is not an earnings forecast, investment recommendation, or franchise-quality rating.
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 scoring values use two decimal places. 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 | Rainbow International RestorationProperty RestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 Item 7 source | 70.62Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.46 pts$1,403,800 median owner-occupied home value | -0.22 pts$25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | City Wide Facility SolutionsIntegrated Facility Management | 70.53Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.46 pts50 million square feet flexible industrial space inventory | -0.10 pts$25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | PuroCleanProperty RestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 Item 7 source | 70.41Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.46 pts$1,403,800 median owner-occupied home value | -0.22 pts$25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Tiger AdjustersPublic Adjusting & Claims AdvocacyInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 Item 7 source | 70.24Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.40 pts$1,403,800 median owner-occupied home value | -0.10 pts9.4% management employment share | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | JAN-PRO InternationalFranchise Consulting TrainingInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 Item 7 source | 70.13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.25 pts50 million square feet flexible industrial space inventory | -0.12 pts$25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | FASTSIGNSSigns & GraphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 Item 7 source | 70.09Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.27 pts50 million square feet flexible industrial space inventory | -0.12 pts$25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | ActionCOACHBusiness CoachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 Item 7 source | 69.99Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.19 pts50 million square feet flexible industrial space inventory | -0.20 pts9.4% management employment share | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | ZOOM DRAINPlumbing & Drain ServicesInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 Item 7 source | 69.94Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.37 pts$1,403,800 median owner-occupied home value | -0.41 pts$25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Mr. RooterPlumbing & Drain ServicesInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 Item 7 source | 69.88Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.37 pts$1,403,800 median owner-occupied home value | -0.42 pts$25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Aire ServHVACInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 Item 7 source | 69.86Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.43 pts$1,403,800 median owner-occupied home value | -0.44 pts$25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | Moderate evidence confidence |
Cross-concept impact analysis
The local conditions that moved scores most
A city condition changes a franchise score only when it intersects with a relevant operating-model exposure. The center shows average effect when applied; the surrounding ring shows how broadly that relationship reached across the concepts assessed.
Most impactful relationship #2
Local condition$1,403,800Median owner-occupied home value
Operating exposureHigh homeowner property-value and equity…
7 of 14 concepts affected50% of concepts assessed
PuroCleanRainbow International RestorationAire ServTiger Adjusters+3
Most impactful relationship #3
Local condition50 million square feet flexible industria…
Operating exposureIndustrial facility and warehouse concent…
10 of 14 concepts affected71% of concepts assessed
City Wide Facility SolutionsFASTSIGNSJAN-PRO InternationalActionCOACH+6
Most impactful relationship #4
Local condition-1.8%Population change since 2020
Operating exposureBroad population or household decline
5 of 14 concepts affected36% of concepts assessed
HomeSmilesAire ServMr. RooterMister Sparky Electric+1
Most impactful relationship #5
Local condition$9,626 per 1,000 square feet traffic impa…
Operating exposureTransportation/development impact fees
2 of 14 concepts affected14% of concepts assessed
Workout AnytimeFASTSIGNS
Details for $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations × High local occupational wage cost environment
Relationship #1$25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations High local occupational wage cost environment
Model exposureHigh local occupational wage cost environment
Most relevant modeled attributes: skilled trade labor, administrative labor, and frontline hourly labor.
Average effect-0.25 ptsTotal absolute modeled influence3.267 ptsLargest single effect-0.44 ptsEvidence confidenceHigh
Effect across concepts
Aire ServHVAC-0.44 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing & Drain Services-0.42 pts
ZOOM DRAINPlumbing & Drain Services-0.41 pts
HomeSmilesRecurring Property Maintenance-0.33 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical Services-0.32 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome Inspection-0.25 pts
Workout AnytimeFull-Service Fitness-0.25 pts
PuroCleanProperty Restoration-0.22 pts
Rainbow International RestorationProperty Restoration-0.22 pts
JAN-PRO InternationalFranchise Consulting Training-0.12 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns & Graphics-0.12 pts
City Wide Facility SolutionsIntegrated Facility Management-0.10 pts
Tiger AdjustersPublic Adjusting & Claims Advocacy-0.08 pts
Selected by total absolute modeled influence across affected concepts.Open evidence chain
Details for $1,403,800 median owner-occupied home value × High homeowner property-value and equity capacity
Relationship #2$1,403,800 median owner-occupied home value High homeowner property-value and equity capacity
Model exposureHigh homeowner property-value and equity capacity
Most relevant modeled attributes: high average ticket.
Average effect+0.40 ptsTotal absolute modeled influence2.794 ptsLargest single effect+0.46 ptsEvidence confidenceHigh
Effect across concepts
PuroCleanProperty Restoration+0.46 pts
Rainbow International RestorationProperty Restoration+0.46 pts
Aire ServHVAC+0.43 pts
Tiger AdjustersPublic Adjusting & Claims Advocacy+0.40 pts
ZOOM DRAINPlumbing & Drain Services+0.37 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing & Drain Services+0.37 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical Services+0.31 pts
Selected by total absolute modeled influence across affected concepts.Open evidence chain
Details for 50 million square feet flexible industrial space inventory × Industrial facility and warehouse concentration
Relationship #350 million square feet flexible industrial space inventory Industrial facility and warehouse concentration
Fremont evidenceFremont's industrial facility and warehouse concentration
Model exposureIndustrial facility and warehouse concentration
Most relevant modeled attributes: recurring commercial demand, institutional sales, and industrial facility dependency.
Average effect+0.20 ptsTotal absolute modeled influence1.960 ptsLargest single effect+0.46 ptsEvidence confidenceModerate
Effect across concepts
City Wide Facility SolutionsIntegrated Facility Management+0.46 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns & Graphics+0.27 pts
JAN-PRO InternationalFranchise Consulting Training+0.25 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness Coaching+0.19 pts
PuroCleanProperty Restoration+0.18 pts
HomeSmilesRecurring Property Maintenance+0.17 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing & Drain Services+0.15 pts
ZOOM DRAINPlumbing & Drain Services+0.13 pts
Aire ServHVAC+0.08 pts
Rainbow International RestorationProperty Restoration+0.08 pts
Selected by total absolute modeled influence across affected concepts.Open evidence chain
Details for -1.8% population change since 2020 × Broad population or household decline
Relationship #4-1.8% population change since 2020 Broad population or household decline
Model exposureBroad population or household decline
Most relevant modeled attributes: recurring residential demand.
Average effect-0.21 ptsTotal absolute modeled influence1.055 ptsLargest single effect-0.27 ptsEvidence confidenceHigh
Effect across concepts
HomeSmilesRecurring Property Maintenance-0.27 pts
Aire ServHVAC-0.22 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing & Drain Services-0.22 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical Services-0.20 pts
ZOOM DRAINPlumbing & Drain Services-0.15 pts
Selected by total absolute modeled influence across affected concepts.Open evidence chain
Details for $9,626 per 1,000 square feet traffic impact fee — retail/service × Transportation/development impact fees
Relationship #5$9,626 per 1,000 square feet traffic impact fee — retail/service Transportation/development impact fees
Fremont evidenceFremont's transportation/development impact fees
Model exposureTransportation/development impact fees
Most relevant modeled attributes: large fixed location, high buildout requirement, and customer facing fixed location.
Average effect-0.40 ptsTotal absolute modeled influence0.804 ptsLargest single effect-0.74 ptsEvidence confidenceHigh
Effect across concepts
Workout AnytimeFull-Service Fitness-0.74 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns & Graphics-0.06 pts
Selected by total absolute modeled influence across affected concepts.Open evidence chain
Modeled evidence traces
Why the same Fremont conditions affect franchise models differently
Each trace follows one documented local condition through resolved operating-model exposure, exact score contribution, and the resulting modeled difference. Open either image for the full-size analytical view.
Why the ranking came out this way
Why the top concepts are nearly tied
The comparison, score path, and counterfactual below all use the same contribution ledger as the published ranking.
Head-to-head
Rainbow International Restoration vs. City Wide Facility Solutions
The modeled gap is small enough that the two concepts should be treated as a leading cluster rather than a decisive first and second place.
| Modeled relationship | Rainbow International Restoration | City Wide Facility Solutions | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| $1,403,800 median owner-occupied home value [2] [1] | +0.46 pts | 0.00 pts | +0.46 pts |
| 50 million square feet flexible industrial space inventory [9] [10] | +0.08 pts | +0.46 pts | -0.38 pts |
| 2.8% under-65 uninsured share [2] [1] | +0.29 pts | 0.00 pts | +0.29 pts |
| 9.4% management employment share [4] | 0.00 pts | +0.17 pts | -0.17 pts |
| $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations [4] | -0.22 pts | -0.10 pts | -0.12 pts |
Fremont's $1,403,800 median owner-occupied home value created the largest modeled gap in this head-to-head: +0.46 points for Rainbow International Restoration versus 0.00 points for City Wide Facility Solutions. [2] [1]
How to interpret the leading cluster
Rainbow International Restoration, City Wide Facility Solutions, and PuroClean gained more than the rest of the field from $1,403,800 median owner-occupied home value and industrial facility and warehouse concentration through target-market demand. They were also less exposed than the rest of the field to $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations through labor and staffing friction. The ordering is assumption-sensitive for Rainbow International Restoration and PuroClean when individual factors are neutralized and the model is rerun. The same city condition can help one operating model while constraining another, so this ranking describes local operating alignment rather than universal franchise quality. [2] [1] [9] [10] [4]
Contribution path
Contribution path for Rainbow International Restoration
Baseline70.00Final70.62Net change+0.62 pts
View the full score ledger for Rainbow International Restoration
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.83 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.22 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.616 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.62 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Inside the analysis workflow
The analytical system behind the report
Methodology-reference views of the research and QA workflow. Open any image for the full-size version.
14Concepts evaluated
26Local sources used
25Primary local sources
28Local 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 the available operating-model evidence supported a deterministic local-sensitivity profile. Brand participation in our referral network does not affect the score.
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
70.52 average across 2 concepts
0.35 points average among 12 affected concepts
0.25 points average reduction among 13 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 8 positions
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Fremont, California
High homeowner property-value and equity capacity
This relationship affected 7 concepts and added 0.40 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: $1,403,800 median owner-occupied home value. [1] [2]
High local occupational wage cost environment
This relationship affected 13 concepts and reduced 0.25 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations. [4]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
High homeowner property-value and equity capacity2 local facts · 1 modeled effect · 2 sources
High local occupational wage cost environment2 local facts · 1 modeled effect · 1 source
Industrial facility and warehouse concentration1 modeled effect
Industrial facility and warehouse concentrationTarget-market demand
Transportation/development impact fees1 modeled effect
Transportation/development impact feesRegulatory and operating friction
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see every material score-changing relationship, with factor net shown only as secondary context; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.62
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900 · Item 7 evidence below
Advantage +0.46 pts $1,403,800 median owner-occupied home valueConstraint -0.22 pts $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.83 pts
Constraints-0.22 pts
Net local movement+0.616 pts
Final score70.62
4 material local relationships changed this score: 3 advantages and 1 constraint.
Largest individual score driver$1,403,800 median owner-occupied home value+0.46 pts
Factor
Target-market demand
Factor subtotal+0.83 pts
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.22 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.22 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement+0.616 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Potential candidate-specific adjustmentsThese relationships depend on territory, site, customer mix, project, or another candidate-specific selection. They stay outside the baseline city score until that selection is known; the model should then be rerun to produce the candidate-adjusted score.
Potential candidate advantageSeismic property-loss exposureProperty replacement-cycle demand
Applicability depends on the selected hazard zone
Potential candidate advantageMapped flood or coastal flood exposureProperty replacement-cycle demand
Applicability depends on the selected floodplain
Potential candidate advantageWildfire and defensible-space exposureProperty replacement-cycle demand
Applicability depends on the selected wildfire zone
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
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. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.83 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.22 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.616 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.62 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.83 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#6
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.53
City Wide Facility Solutions
Advantage +0.46 pts 50 million square feet flexible industrial space inventoryConstraint -0.10 pts $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.63 pts
Constraints-0.10 pts
Net local movement+0.533 pts
Final score70.53
3 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 1 constraint.
Largest individual score driver50 million square feet flexible industrial space inventory+0.46 pts
Factor
Target-market demand
Factor subtotal+0.63 pts
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.10 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.10 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement+0.533 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.63 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.10 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.533 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.53 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.63 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#3
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.41
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145 · Item 7 evidence below
Advantage +0.46 pts $1,403,800 median owner-occupied home valueConstraint -0.22 pts $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.63 pts
Constraints-0.22 pts
Net local movement+0.415 pts
Final score70.41
3 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 1 constraint.
Largest individual score driver$1,403,800 median owner-occupied home value+0.46 pts
Factor
Target-market demand
Factor subtotal+0.63 pts
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.22 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.22 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement+0.415 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Potential candidate-specific adjustmentsThese relationships depend on territory, site, customer mix, project, or another candidate-specific selection. They stay outside the baseline city score until that selection is known; the model should then be rerun to produce the candidate-adjusted score.
Potential candidate advantageSeismic property-loss exposureProperty replacement-cycle demand
Applicability depends on the selected hazard zone
Potential candidate advantageMapped flood or coastal flood exposureProperty replacement-cycle demand
Applicability depends on the selected floodplain
Potential candidate advantageWildfire and defensible-space exposureProperty replacement-cycle demand
Applicability depends on the selected wildfire zone
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
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. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.63 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.22 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.415 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.41 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.63 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#7
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.24
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500 · Item 7 evidence below
Advantage +0.40 pts $1,403,800 median owner-occupied home valueConstraint -0.10 pts 9.4% management employment share
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.42 pts
Constraints-0.18 pts
Net local movement+0.235 pts
Final score70.24
3 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 2 constraints. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.017 pts.
Largest individual score driver$1,403,800 median owner-occupied home value+0.40 pts
Factor
Target-market demand
Factor subtotal+0.42 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $1,403,800 median owner-occupied home valueLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #4 to #7 without this driver. | +0.40 pts | HighEvidence |
Factor
Sales and customer acquisition
Factor subtotal-0.10 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 9.4% management employment share | -0.10 pts | HighEvidence |
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.08 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.08 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement+0.235 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Potential candidate-specific adjustmentsThese relationships depend on territory, site, customer mix, project, or another candidate-specific selection. They stay outside the baseline city score until that selection is known; the model should then be rerun to produce the candidate-adjusted score.
Potential candidate advantageSeismic property-loss exposureProperty replacement-cycle demand
Applicability depends on the selected hazard zone
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
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
Additional brand source material assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.42 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.08 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | -0.10 |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.235 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.24 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.42 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#5
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.13
JAN-PRO International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500 · Item 7 evidence below
Advantage +0.25 pts 50 million square feet flexible industrial space inventoryConstraint -0.12 pts $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.25 pts
Constraints-0.12 pts
Net local movement+0.130 pts
Final score70.13
2 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 1 constraint.
Largest individual score driver50 million square feet flexible industrial space inventory+0.25 pts
Factor
Target-market demand
Factor subtotal+0.25 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 50 million square feet flexible industrial space inventoryLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #5 without this driver. | +0.25 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.12 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.12 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement+0.130 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
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. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.25 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.12 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.130 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.13 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.25 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#10
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.09
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285 · Item 7 evidence below
Advantage +0.27 pts 50 million square feet flexible industrial space inventoryConstraint -0.12 pts $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.27 pts
Constraints-0.18 pts
Net local movement+0.089 pts
Final score70.09
3 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 2 constraints.
Largest individual score driver50 million square feet flexible industrial space inventory+0.27 pts
Factor
Target-market demand
Factor subtotal+0.27 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 50 million square feet flexible industrial space inventoryLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #6 without this driver. | +0.27 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.12 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.12 pts | HighEvidence |
Factor
Regulatory and operating friction
Factor subtotal-0.06 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $9,626 per 1,000 square feet traffic impact fee — retail/service | -0.06 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement+0.089 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
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
Additional brand source material assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.27 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.12 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -0.06 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.089 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.09 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.27 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#9
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.99
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513 · Item 7 evidence below
Advantage +0.19 pts 50 million square feet flexible industrial space inventoryConstraint -0.20 pts 9.4% management employment share
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.19 pts
Constraints-0.20 pts
Net local movement-0.014 pts
Final score69.99
2 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 1 constraint.
Largest individual score driver9.4% management employment share-0.20 pts
Factor
Sales and customer acquisition
Factor subtotal-0.20 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 9.4% management employment shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #7 without this driver. | -0.20 pts | HighEvidence |
Factor
Target-market demand
Factor subtotal+0.19 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 50 million square feet flexible industrial space inventory | +0.19 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Overall local score movement-0.014 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
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. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.19 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | -0.20 |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.986 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.99 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Sales and customer acquisition -0.20 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#11
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.94
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500 · Item 7 evidence below
Advantage +0.37 pts $1,403,800 median owner-occupied home valueConstraint -0.41 pts $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.50 pts
Constraints-0.56 pts
Net local movement-0.061 pts
Final score69.94
4 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 2 constraints.
Largest individual score driver$25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations-0.41 pts
Factor
Target-market demand
Factor subtotal+0.35 pts
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.41 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupationsLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #8 to #4 without this driver. | -0.41 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement-0.061 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
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. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.35 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.41 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.939 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.94 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.41 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#11
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.88
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675 · Item 7 evidence below
Advantage +0.37 pts $1,403,800 median owner-occupied home valueConstraint -0.42 pts $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.52 pts
Constraints-0.64 pts
Net local movement-0.122 pts
Final score69.88
4 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 2 constraints.
Largest individual score driver$25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations-0.42 pts
Factor
Target-market demand
Factor subtotal+0.30 pts
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.42 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupationsLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #9 to #6 without this driver. | -0.42 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement-0.122 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
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. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.30 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.42 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.878 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.88 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.42 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#12
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.86
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708 · Item 7 evidence below
Advantage +0.43 pts $1,403,800 median owner-occupied home valueConstraint -0.44 pts $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.51 pts
Constraints-0.66 pts
Net local movement-0.145 pts
Final score69.86
4 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 2 constraints.
Largest individual score driver$25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations-0.44 pts
Factor
Target-market demand
Factor subtotal+0.29 pts
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.44 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupationsLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #10 to #7 without this driver. | -0.44 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement-0.145 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
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
Additional brand source material assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.29 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.44 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.855 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.86 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.44 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#13
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.79
Mister Sparky Electric
Advantage +0.31 pts $1,403,800 median owner-occupied home valueConstraint -0.32 pts $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.31 pts
Constraints-0.52 pts
Net local movement-0.206 pts
Final score69.79
3 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 2 constraints.
Largest individual score driver$25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations-0.32 pts
Factor
Target-market demand
Factor subtotal+0.11 pts
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.32 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupationsLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #11 to #8 without this driver. | -0.32 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement-0.206 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.11 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.32 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.794 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.79 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.32 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#11
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.72
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290 · Item 7 evidence below
No material positive local adjustment identifiedConstraint -0.25 pts $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages0.00 pts
Constraints-0.28 pts
Net local movement-0.285 pts
Final score69.72
1 material local relationships changed this score: 0 advantages and 1 constraint. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to -0.034 pts.
Largest individual score driver$25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations-0.25 pts
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.25 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupationsLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #12 without this driver. | -0.25 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement-0.285 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
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
Additional brand source material assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.25 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.715 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.72 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.25 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.50
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800 · Item 7 evidence below
Advantage +0.17 pts 50 million square feet flexible industrial space inventoryConstraint -0.33 pts $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.17 pts
Constraints-0.67 pts
Net local movement-0.500 pts
Final score69.50
4 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 3 constraints.
Largest individual score driver$25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations-0.33 pts
Factor
Target-market demand
Factor subtotal-0.10 pts
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.33 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupationsLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #13 without this driver. | -0.33 pts | HighEvidence |
Factor
Regulatory and operating friction
Factor subtotal-0.08 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $18.05/hour fremont statutory minimum wage | -0.08 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement-0.500 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
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. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.10 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.33 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -0.08 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.500 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.50 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.33 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.76
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 · Item 7 evidence below
No material positive local adjustment identifiedConstraint -0.74 pts $9,626 per 1,000 square feet traffic impact fee — retail/service
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages0.00 pts
Constraints-1.24 pts
Net local movement-1.238 pts
Final score68.76
4 material local relationships changed this score: 0 advantages and 4 constraints. 2 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to -0.059 pts.
Largest individual score driver$9,626 per 1,000 square feet traffic impact fee — retail/service-0.74 pts
Factor
Regulatory and operating friction
Factor subtotal-0.99 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $9,626 per 1,000 square feet traffic impact fee — retail/serviceLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #14 without this driver. | -0.74 pts | HighEvidence |
| $6.08 per square foot uSD capacity charge — C/I/O domestic use over 10,000 sq ft, effective October 1, 2026 | -0.12 pts | HighEvidence |
| $18.05/hour fremont statutory minimum wage | -0.08 pts | HighEvidence |
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.25 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.25 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement-1.238 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Potential candidate-specific adjustmentsThese relationships depend on territory, site, customer mix, project, or another candidate-specific selection. They stay outside the baseline city score until that selection is known; the model should then be rerun to produce the candidate-adjusted score.
Potential candidate constraintMapped flood or coastal flood exposureProperty replacement-cycle demand
Applicability depends on the selected floodplain
Potential candidate constraintWildfire and defensible-space exposureProperty replacement-cycle demand
Applicability depends on the selected wildfire zone
Potential candidate constraintFloodplain development and elevation requirementsRegulatory and operating friction
Applicability depends on the selected floodplain
Potential candidate constraintHistoric-district or design-review requirementsRegulatory and operating friction
Applicability depends on the selected historic district
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
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. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.25 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -0.99 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.762 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.76 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Regulatory and operating friction -0.99 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
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 12 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 13 concepts changed position. Rainbow International Restoration moved from #1 to #6, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted12 of 14
Average among affected+0.35 pts
Average across all concepts+0.30 pts
Concepts changing rank13
What we observed
- Population Change Since 2020-1.8%
- Median Owner Occupied Home Value$1,403,800
- Median Household Income$181,506
Concepts helped most
Rainbow International RestorationProperty Restoration
+0.83 pts
City Wide Facility SolutionsIntegrated Facility Management
+0.63 pts
PuroCleanProperty Restoration
+0.63 pts
Tiger AdjustersPublic Adjusting & Claims Advocacy
+0.42 pts
ZOOM DRAINPlumbing & Drain Services
+0.35 pts
Concepts challenged most
HomeSmilesRecurring Property Maintenance
-0.10 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome Inspection
-0.03 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 8 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #8 to #4, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected-0.25 pts
Average across all concepts-0.23 pts
Concepts changing rank8
What we observed
- Food Preparation And Serving Mean Hourly Wage$22.91/hour
- Mean Hourly Wage For Building And Grounds Occupations$25.46/hour
- Office And Administrative Support Mean Hourly Wage$32.96/hour
Concepts challenged most
Aire ServHVAC
-0.44 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing & Drain Services
-0.42 pts
ZOOM DRAINPlumbing & Drain Services
-0.41 pts
HomeSmilesRecurring Property Maintenance
-0.33 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical Services
-0.32 pts
Observed model effectEvidence incomplete
Sales and customer acquisition
We weighed the size of the prospect pool against local digital competition and the length of the relevant sales cycle.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 2 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 3 concepts changed position. ActionCOACH moved from #7 to #5, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted2 of 14
Average among affected-0.15 pts
Average across all concepts-0.02 pts
Concepts changing rank3
Concepts challenged most
ActionCOACHBusiness Coaching
-0.20 pts
Tiger AdjustersPublic Adjusting & Claims Advocacy
-0.10 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Regulatory and operating friction
We separated regulations that create operating burdens from those that may create demand for qualified compliance and retrofit services.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 3 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 5 concepts changed position. Workout Anytime moved from #14 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted3 of 14
Average among affected-0.38 pts
Average across all concepts-0.08 pts
Concepts changing rank5
What we observed
- Fremont Statutory Minimum Wage$18.05/hour
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFull-Service Fitness
-0.99 pts
HomeSmilesRecurring Property Maintenance
-0.08 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns & Graphics
-0.06 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Property replacement-cycle demandNo material score adjustment
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Referral ecosystemNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo 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 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #1–#6
#2 City Wide Facility SolutionsModerately sensitive · tested #1–#3
#3 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #2–#7
#4 Tiger AdjustersModerately sensitive · tested #3–#5
#5 JAN-PRO InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#10
#6 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #4–#9
#7 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #5–#11
#8 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #4–#11
#9 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #6–#12
#10 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #7–#13
#11 Mister Sparky ElectricModerately sensitive · tested #8–#11
#12 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13
#13 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #10–#14
#14 Workout AnytimeModerately sensitive · tested #12–#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.
Net factor impact
Net factor totals across the highest-ranked concepts
This graph plots net factor totals for the top 14 concepts. A near-zero net can contain meaningful positive and negative scored relationships that offset each other; those underlying drivers remain visible in each franchise's expanded score explanation.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [2] [1] [3] [9] [8] [10]Property replacement-cycle demand: [13] [11] [12]Labor and staffing friction: [4] [2] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [2] [1]Real estate and site feasibility: [26]Referral ecosystem: [20]Regulatory and operating friction: [15] [14] [6] [2] [1] [7] [5] [25] [22] [18] [23] [21] [24] [19] [16] [17]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Labor and staffing friction | Sales and customer acquisition | Regulatory and operating friction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.80 pts | -0.20 pts | — | — |
| #2 City Wide Facility Solutions | +0.60 pts | -0.10 pts | — | — |
| #3 PuroClean | +0.60 pts | -0.20 pts | — | — |
| #4 Tiger Adjusters | +0.40 pts | -0.10 pts | -0.10 pts | — |
| #5 JAN-PRO International | +0.20 pts | -0.10 pts | — | — |
| #6 FASTSIGNS | +0.30 pts | -0.10 pts | — | -0.10 pts |
| #7 ActionCOACH | +0.20 pts | — | -0.20 pts | — |
| #8 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.30 pts | -0.40 pts | — | — |
| #9 Mr. Rooter | +0.30 pts | -0.40 pts | — | — |
| #10 Aire Serv | +0.30 pts | -0.40 pts | — | — |
| #11 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.10 pts | -0.30 pts | — | — |
| #12 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | -0.30 pts | — | — |
| #13 HomeSmiles | -0.10 pts | -0.30 pts | — | -0.10 pts |
| #14 Workout Anytime | — | -0.20 pts | — | -1.00 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the leading cluster
Rainbow International Restoration, City Wide Facility Solutions, and PuroClean gained more than the rest of the field from $1,403,800 median owner-occupied home value and industrial facility and warehouse concentration through target-market demand. They were also less exposed than the rest of the field to $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations through labor and staffing friction. The ordering is assumption-sensitive for Rainbow International Restoration and PuroClean when individual factors are neutralized and the model is rerun. The same city condition can help one operating model while constraining another, so this ranking describes local operating alignment rather than universal franchise quality.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Fremont, California
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.52Limited comparison: Property Restoration franchise opportunities assessed in Fremont, California
2 Property Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.41 to 70.62. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.62. Target-market demand added 0.73 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.22 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.20-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.41–70.62
- Category average
- 70.52
Rainbow International Restoration70.62
PuroClean70.41
Limited two-concept comparison
69.91Limited comparison: Plumbing & Drain Services franchise opportunities assessed in Fremont, California
2 Plumbing & Drain Services concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.88 to 69.94. ZOOM DRAIN ranked highest at 69.94. Target-market demand added 0.32 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.41 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.06-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 69.88–69.94
- Category average
- 69.91
ZOOM DRAIN69.94
Mr. Rooter69.88
Metric registry
The 28 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 population estimate | 226,442 | 2020-2024 ACS / July 1, 2025 population estimates / 2022 economic census indicators | Fremont, California | Context only | [1] |
| Population change since 2020 | -1.8% | 2020-2024 ACS / July 1, 2025 population estimates / 2022 economic census indicators | Fremont, California | Used in scoring | [1] [3] |
| Population density | 2,943.3 residents per square mile | 2020-2024 ACS / July 1, 2025 population estimates / 2022 economic census indicators | Fremont, California | Context only | [1] |
| Household count | 78,054 | 2020-2024 ACS / July 1, 2025 population estimates / 2022 economic census indicators | Fremont, California | Context only | [1] |
| Owner-occupied housing share | 60.8% | 2020-2024 ACS / July 1, 2025 population estimates / 2022 economic census indicators | Fremont, California | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Renter-occupied housing share | 39.2% | 2020-2024 ACS / July 1, 2025 population estimates / 2022 economic census indicators | Fremont, California | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Recent-mover share | 11.8% | 2020-2024 ACS / July 1, 2025 population estimates / 2022 economic census indicators | Fremont, California | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Median owner-occupied home value | $1,403,800 | 2020-2024 ACS / July 1, 2025 population estimates / 2022 economic census indicators | Fremont, California | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Median gross rent | $2,933 per month | 2020-2024 ACS / July 1, 2025 population estimates / 2022 economic census indicators | Fremont, California | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Median household income | $181,506 | 2020-2024 ACS / July 1, 2025 population estimates / 2022 economic census indicators | Fremont, California | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Poverty rate | 5.2% | 2020-2024 ACS / July 1, 2025 population estimates / 2022 economic census indicators | Fremont, California | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Age 65 and older share | 14.0% | 2020-2024 ACS / July 1, 2025 population estimates / 2022 economic census indicators | Fremont, California | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Under-18 population share | 22.3% | 2020-2024 ACS / July 1, 2025 population estimates / 2022 economic census indicators | Fremont, California | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Under-65 disability share | 3.5% | 2020-2024 ACS / July 1, 2025 population estimates / 2022 economic census indicators | Fremont, California | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Under-65 uninsured share | 2.8% | 2020-2024 ACS / July 1, 2025 population estimates / 2022 economic census indicators | Fremont, California | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Civilian labor-force participation | 67.9% | 2020-2024 ACS / July 1, 2025 population estimates / 2022 economic census indicators | Fremont, California | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Mean travel time to work | 30.3 minutes | 2020-2024 ACS / July 1, 2025 population estimates / 2022 economic census indicators | Fremont, California | Supports modeled relationship | [1] [2] |
| Households with broadband internet subscription | 96.8% | 2020-2024 ACS / July 1, 2025 population estimates / 2022 economic census indicators | Fremont, California | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Retail sales per capita | $21,019 | 2020-2024 ACS / July 1, 2025 population estimates / 2022 economic census indicators | Fremont, California | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts | $2.953 billion | 2020-2024 ACS / July 1, 2025 population estimates / 2022 economic census indicators | Fremont, California | Context only | [1] |
| Accommodation and food services sales | $708.859 million | 2020-2024 ACS / July 1, 2025 population estimates / 2022 economic census indicators | Fremont, California | Context only | [1] |
| Transportation and warehousing receipts | $480.424 million | 2020-2024 ACS / July 1, 2025 population estimates / 2022 economic census indicators | Fremont, California | Context only | [1] |
| Food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | $22.91/hour | May 2025 | San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Mean hourly wage for building and grounds occupations | $25.46/hour | May 2025 | San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Office and administrative support mean hourly wage | $32.96/hour | May 2025 | San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Construction and extraction mean hourly wage | $43.66/hour | May 2025 | San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Installation, maintenance, and repair mean hourly wage | $38.95/hour | May 2025 | San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Fremont statutory minimum wage | $18.05/hour | Effective July 1, 2026 | Fremont, California | Used in scoring | [5] [6] |
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.
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 broadly applicable effects
Apply fully supported relationships at full weight and otherwise scoreable research- or taxonomy-gated relationships at a reduced provisional weight.
Preserve candidate-dependent effects
Keep territory-, site-, customer-, project-, or configuration-dependent relationships outside the baseline score until the relevant candidate selections are known.
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 70.00 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In Fremont, Rainbow International Restoration reached 70.616. $1,403,800 median owner-occupied home value and 2.8% under-65 uninsured share together produced +0.83 points through target-market demand. [2] [1] Labor and staffing friction totaled -0.22 points, led by $25.46/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations at -0.22 points. [4]
The current model caps total local movement at ±18.00 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Score calibration
How relationship effects become score adjustments
Each score-changing relationship starts with its model-defined maximum effect. The documented city-condition strength and the franchise's weighted operating exposure scale that maximum. Evidence confidence, provenance, geographic applicability, and the profile-confidence multiplier then modify the pre-cap effect. Fully supported relationships use full weight; broadly applicable relationships held back only by research or taxonomy-review gates use an additional 0.80 eligibility multiplier. Candidate-dependent site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections remain outside the baseline score until resolved. Correlation and score caps can reduce the resulting magnitude before the final contribution is added to the common baseline.
Operating exposureHigh homeowner property-value and equity capacityRainbow International Restoration weighted operating exposureExposure 0.229 / 1.000
Model calibration+3.00 pts ceilingEvidence/applicability ×0.980 · pre-cap +0.46 ptsRelationship-specific maximum
Score effect+0.46 ptsNo post-calibration control reduced this relationshipOpen evidence chain
Worked-example calibration inputsActual model values, not generic point bands
City-condition strength0.850 / 1.000
Operating exposure0.229 / 1.000
Evidence & applicability×0.980
Relationship ceiling3.000 pts
The model does not use one universal Minor/Moderate/Strong point table. Relationship-specific max_effect values are the actual point ceilings, so publishing generic point bands would misstate the scoring system.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.00–100.00
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.00–<80.00
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.00–<72.00
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.00–<64.00
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelPotential candidate-specific adjustmentNot 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. Reports are checked for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability before publication.
Model history
Model updates are versioned and dated, documenting material changes to scoring, evidence handling, methodology, governance, and presentation across published reports.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Local evidence supporting this report
The city page keeps the local sources used for its visible findings and metrics. Franchise-source provenance stays with the underlying franchise research rather than being duplicated across every city page.
- 1U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Fremont city, California
Used for: 2025 population estimate, Population change since 2020, Population density, Household count, and Owner-occupied housing share
- 2U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: California
Used for: Owner-occupied housing share, Renter-occupied housing share, Recent-mover share, Median owner-occupied home value, and Median gross rent
- 3U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
Used for: Population change since 2020
- 4Occupational Employment and Wages in San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont — May 2025
Used for: Food preparation and serving mean hourly wage, Mean hourly wage for building and grounds occupations, Office and administrative support mean hourly wage, Construction and extraction mean hourly wage, and Installation, maintenance, and repair mean hourly wage
- 5Minimum Wage
Used for: Fremont statutory minimum wage
- 6Minimum Wage
Used for: Fremont statutory minimum wage
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
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.