67.9 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Anchorage, Alaska
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Anchorage, Alaska. Local business 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
23Sources used
17Primary sources
37Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
1.1 points average among 11 affected concepts
1.6 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 9 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Anchorage, Alaska
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, and ActionCOACH produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Local business demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 10 exposed concepts, adding 1 point on average. Skilled-trade labor competition was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 1.6 points on average. Mister Sparky Electric was especially relationship-sensitive: removing skilled-trade labor competition moved it from #12 to #10 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 | 72.7Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 72.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 71.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 69.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.7 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 69.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.8 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 68.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 68.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -1.2 ptsRegulatory and operating friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 68.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 68.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 67.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Anchorage, Alaska
Substantial employer, employment, and commercial activity supports local business-account demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 1 point on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Total employer establishments: 8,799 establishments. [5] [7]
Anchorage trade and maintenance wages exceed national major-occupation averages
This relationship affected 10 concepts and reduced 1.6 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Mean hourly wage for construction and extraction occupations: anchorage: 37.3; united states: 31.42 usd per hour. [6]
Anchorage municipality had an estimated 287,155 residents in 2025
Anchorage's municipality spans about 1,706.8 square miles and had a 2020 density of 170.6 people per square mile, while Midtown alone contains 8 percent of municipal employment and 17 percent of commercial property value. The resident population therefore supports broad market scale but should not be treated as a proxy for walk-in density, short route distances, or uniform territory quality. [4] [14]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Substantial employer, employment, and commercial activity supports local business-account demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Anchorage trade and maintenance wages exceed national major-occupation averages1 modeled effect
Skilled-trade labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
High metropolitan wage levels increase pressure for management and technical staffing1 modeled effect
Management and technical labor pressureLabor and staffing friction
Municipal sign rules prohibit portable signs and new pole signs1 modeled effect
Signage and prototype adaptation burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.7
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +2.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.9 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.73 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 | +2.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.73 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.7 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment72.0
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +2.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.4 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.5 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.1 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.96 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 | +2.4 |
| 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 | -0.5 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.1 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.96 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.0 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#3
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.9
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +1.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 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 | +1.9 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.92 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.92 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#3
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.2
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.4 pts Target-market 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 | |
| Target-market demand | +1.4 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.5 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 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 | +1.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.5 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.4 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#9
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.1
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.8 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.92 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.5 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.08 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.1 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#7
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.7
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.2 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.27 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.3 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.73 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#9
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.1
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.2 pts Regulatory and operating 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory and operating friction |
| -1.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.92 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 | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -1.2 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.08 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.1 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Regulatory and operating friction -1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#14
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.0
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +2.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.5 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.3 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.5 pts | |
| Regulatory and operating friction |
| -1.3 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.0 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.7 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.99 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 | +2.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.7 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.0 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.2 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -1.3 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.01 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.0 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#11
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.0
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.5 pts | |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.9 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.04 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 | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.9 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.96 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.0 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#9
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.9
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.6 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 | -1.6 pts | |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.9 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.5 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.12 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 | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.5 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.9 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.88 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.9 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#10
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment66.0
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -2.9 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 | -2.9 pts | |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.0 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.8 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -4.00 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.8 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.0 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 66.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 66.0 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#13
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment65.9
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.2 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -3.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -3.2 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.7 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -4.11 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 | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -3.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.7 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.4 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 65.89 |
| Published local-market alignment | 65.9 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -3.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#14
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment65.9
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -3.0 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
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 | -3.0 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.8 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.7 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -4.15 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 | -3.0 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.8 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.7 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 65.85 |
| Published local-market alignment | 65.9 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -3.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment65.6
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -3.7 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 | -3.7 pts | |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.9 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.7 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -4.43 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -3.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.7 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.9 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 65.57 |
| Published local-market alignment | 65.6 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -3.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#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 | +2.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.73 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectPositive local support
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 11 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. HomeSmiles moved from #4 to #9, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted11 of 14
Average among affected+1.1 pts
Average across all concepts+0.9 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Total Retail Sales6,134,203,000 usd
- Total Employer Establishments8,799 establishments
- Total Nonfarm Wage And Salary Employment In June 2026187,000 jobs
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+2.9 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+2.4 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+2.3 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+1.9 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.4 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 5 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 2 concepts changed position. Mister Sparky Electric moved from #12 to #13, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted5 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank2
What we observed
- Housing Conditions Cited In The 2025 Rehabilitation Ordinancerental vacancy rate: below 5%; rent increase since 2019 percent: 30; vacant abandoned residential properties: 180; share of registry built before 1980 percent: almost 80 mixed
- Anchorage Climatic And Foundation Design Criteriaweathering: severe; ground snow load psf: 50; frost line depth warm foundation inches: 42; frost line depth cold foundation inches: 60; winter design temperature f: -7 mixed
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.5 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.5 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.3 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.2 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, 8 concepts changed position. Workout Anytime moved from #7 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-1.6 pts
Average across all concepts-1.6 pts
Concepts changing rank8
What we observed
- Unemployment Rate In June 20263.8 percent
- Mean Hourly Wage Across All Occupationsanchorage: 36.14; united states: 33.54 usd per hour
- Mean Hourly Wage For Management Occupations66 usd per hour
Concepts challenged most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-3.7 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-3.2 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-3.0 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-2.9 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
-1.7 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Transportation, routing, and parking
We recalculated route-dependent models after accounting for travel corridors, parking, and the number of productive stops they require.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 5 concepts changed position. Workout Anytime moved from #7 to #9, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected-0.5 pts
Average across all concepts-0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank5
What we observed
- Estimated Residential Street Clearing Time After Qualifying Snowfall4 to 6 inches hours: 84; 6 to 10 inches hours: 96; 10 to 15 inches hours: 108; over 15 inches hours: 120+
- Commercial Vehicle Restriction On Local Or Neighborhood Collector Streetsgross weight threshold pounds: 10,000; general rule: prohibited; exceptions: required delivery or pickup, business service where the vehicle is essential; routing condition: most direct route with least travel on local or residential collector streets
Concepts challenged most
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.8 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.8 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.7 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-0.7 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-0.7 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Real estate and site feasibility
We applied site and operating-base constraints only to concepts requiring comparable storefront, production, warehouse, or fleet space.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 8 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #8 to #6, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected-0.8 pts
Average across all concepts-0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank8
What we observed
- Anchorage Industrial Market Vacancy And Asking Lease Rangecitywide vacancy percent: 2.8; average lease range usd per sf month nnn: 1.4, 1.65 mixed
- Midtown Industrial Vacancy And Functional Space Asking Rentsvacancy percent: under 2; functional space lease rate usd per sf month: over 1.60 mixed
Concepts challenged most
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-1.0 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.0 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.9 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-0.9 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.9 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Referral ecosystem
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 5 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #11 to #13, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.3 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank5
What we observed
- Health Care And Social Assistance Receipts/revenue5,811,889,000 usd
- Average Annual Employment In Midtownjobs: 26,148; share of moa employment percent: 8 mixed
- Largest Establishment Groups In Midtownprofessional scientific technical: 248; health care social assistance: 179; retail trade: 163 establishments
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.5 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.4 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.4 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.4 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.3 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 2 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 5 concepts changed position. Workout Anytime moved from #7 to #4, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted2 of 14
Average among affected-1.2 pts
Average across all concepts-0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank5
What we observed
- Portable Signs And New Pole Signsportable signs: prohibited everywhere in the Municipality; new pole signs: prohibited rule
Concepts challenged most
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-1.3 pts
Workout AnytimeFitness
-1.2 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
0.0 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo 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 City WideStable · tested #1–#2
#2 Jan-Pro InternationalStable · tested #2–#3
#3 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #1–#3
#4 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #4–#9
#5 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsModerately sensitive · tested #4–#7
#6 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #5–#9
#7 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #5–#14
#8 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #4–#11
#9 Rainbow International RestorationModerately sensitive · tested #7–#9
#10 PuroCleanModerately sensitive · tested #7–#10
#11 ZOOM DRAINModerately sensitive · tested #11–#13
#12 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #10–#14
#13 Mr. RooterStable · tested #12–#13
#14 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #10–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [5] [7] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [1] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [21] [22] [5] [4] [1]Competitive environment: [5] [14] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [6] [7] [8] [2] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [12] [13] [16] [17] [3] [2]Real estate and site feasibility: [20] [19] [14] [9] [1] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [5] [14] [15] [18] [3]Referral ecosystem: [14] [4] [15] [3]Territory quality: [4] [14] [20] [15] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [9] [10] [11] [23] [22] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Transportation, routing, and parking | Real estate and site feasibility | Referral ecosystem | Regulatory and operating friction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +2.9 pts | — | -0.6 pts | -0.1 pts | — | +0.5 pts | — |
| #2 Jan-Pro International | +2.4 pts | — | -0.1 pts | -0.5 pts | — | +0.1 pts | — |
| #3 ActionCOACH | +1.9 pts | — | -0.4 pts | — | — | +0.4 pts | — |
| #4 HomeSmiles | +1.4 pts | — | -1.7 pts | -0.5 pts | -0.4 pts | +0.4 pts | — |
| #5 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.2 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.8 pts | -0.5 pts | — | — | — |
| #6 Tiger Adjusters | +0.2 pts | — | -1.2 pts | -0.3 pts | — | — | — |
| #7 Workout Anytime | — | — | -0.3 pts | -0.4 pts | — | — | -1.2 pts |
| #8 FASTSIGNS | +2.3 pts | — | -1.5 pts | -0.7 pts | -1.0 pts | +0.2 pts | -1.3 pts |
| #9 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.1 pts | +0.5 pts | -1.5 pts | -0.6 pts | -0.9 pts | +0.3 pts | — |
| #10 PuroClean | — | +0.5 pts | -1.6 pts | -0.5 pts | -0.9 pts | +0.4 pts | — |
| #11 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.4 pts | — | -2.9 pts | -0.8 pts | -1.0 pts | +0.3 pts | — |
| #12 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.2 pts | -3.2 pts | -0.7 pts | -0.4 pts | — | — |
| #13 Mr. Rooter | +0.3 pts | — | -3.0 pts | -0.8 pts | -0.7 pts | — | — |
| #14 Aire Serv | +0.3 pts | +0.6 pts | -3.7 pts | -0.7 pts | -0.9 pts | — | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, ActionCOACH led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to labor and staffing friction. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for HomeSmiles, Tiger Adjusters, Workout Anytime; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Anchorage, Alaska
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
67.9Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Anchorage, Alaska
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 67.9 to 68.0. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 68.0. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.5 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 1.5 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.1-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 67.9–68.0
- Category average
- 67.9
Rainbow International Restoration68.0
PuroClean67.9
Metric registry
The 37 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 | 287,155people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales and receipts | Anchorage municipality, Alaska | Supports research conclusion | [4] |
| Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | -1.4percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales and receipts | Anchorage municipality, Alaska | Context only | [4] |
| Municipal land area | 1,706.8square miles | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales and receipts | Anchorage municipality, Alaska | Conditional relationship | [4] |
| Population per square mile | 170.6people per square mile | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales and receipts | Anchorage municipality, Alaska | Conditional relationship | [4] |
| Estimated households | 108,597households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales and receipts | Anchorage municipality, Alaska | Context only | [4] |
| Median household income in 2024 dollars | 103,284usd per year | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales and receipts | Anchorage municipality, Alaska | Context only | [4] |
| Total retail sales | 6,134,203,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales and receipts | Anchorage municipality, Alaska | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue | 5,811,889,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales and receipts | Anchorage municipality, Alaska | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Transportation and warehousing receipts/revenue | 4,139,718,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales and receipts | Anchorage municipality, Alaska | Context only | [4] |
| Total employer establishments | 8,799establishments | 2024 ACS 1-year estimates and 2023 County Business Patterns | Anchorage Municipality, Alaska | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Total nonfarm wage and salary employment in June 2026 | 187,000jobs | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and nonfarm-employment data | Anchorage, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Unemployment rate in June 2026 | 3.8percent | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and nonfarm-employment data | Anchorage, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Transportation and utilities employment in June 2026 | 40,600jobs | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and nonfarm-employment data | Anchorage, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [7] |
| Mean hourly wage across all occupations | anchorage: 36.14; united states: 33.54usd per hour | May 2025 | Anchorage, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area compared with United States | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Mean hourly wage for management occupations | 66usd per hour | May 2025 | Anchorage, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Mean hourly wage for construction and extraction occupations | anchorage: 37.3; united states: 31.42usd per hour | May 2025 | Anchorage, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area compared with United States | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Mean hourly wage for installation, maintenance, and repair occupations | anchorage: 35.96; united states: 30.44usd per hour | May 2025 | Anchorage, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area compared with United States | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Transportation and material moving employment and mean wage | employment: 17,980; employment share percent: 10.2; mean hourly wage anchorage: 34.18; mean hourly wage us: 23.96mixed | May 2025 | Anchorage, AK Metropolitan Statistical Area compared with United States | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Alaska minimum wage effective July 1, 2026 | 14usd per hour | Minimum wage effective July 1, 2026 | Alaska, including Anchorage | Context only | [8] |
| Average annual employment in Midtown | jobs: 26,148; share of moa employment percent: 8mixed | Recent Midtown District Plan analysis using municipal, ACS, QCEW, and property data | Midtown District, Anchorage | Used in scoring | [14] |
| Midtown commercial concentration | commercial land share percent: 58; share of moa commercial property value percent: 17; midtown business establishment share percent: 6; commercial land value relative to citywide: nearly 10 times citywide averagemixed | Recent Midtown District Plan analysis using municipal, ACS, QCEW, and property data | Midtown District, Anchorage | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| Largest establishment groups in Midtown | professional scientific technical: 248; health care social assistance: 179; retail trade: 163establishments | Recent Midtown District Plan analysis using municipal, ACS, QCEW, and property data | Midtown District, Anchorage | Used in scoring | [14] |
| Anchorage industrial market vacancy and asking lease range | citywide vacancy percent: 2.8; average lease range usd per sf month nnn: 1.4, 1.65mixed | Q3 2025 market snapshot | Anchorage industrial market | Used in scoring | [20] [1] |
| Midtown industrial vacancy and functional-space asking rents | vacancy percent: under 2; functional space lease rate usd per sf month: over 1.60mixed | Q3 2025 market snapshot | Midtown, Anchorage | Used in scoring | [20] [1] |
| On-site snow storage area for covered nonresidential development when snow is stored on site | minimum share of plowed parking and access surface percent: 5; alternative management allowed: yesrule | Current chapter accessed August 2026 | Municipality of Anchorage, subject to AMC 21.07.040F applicability | Context only | [9] [3] |
| Portable signs and new pole signs | portable signs: prohibited everywhere in the Municipality; new pole signs: prohibitedrule | Current sign guidance accessed August 2026 | Municipality of Anchorage, subject to AMC 21.12 applicability and exemptions | Used in scoring | [10] [11] [3] |
| Estimated residential street clearing time after qualifying snowfall | 4 to 6 inches hours: 84; 6 to 10 inches hours: 96; 10 to 15 inches hours: 108; over 15 inches hours: 120+hours | 2025-2026 winter operating procedures | Municipality-maintained Anchorage residential streets | Used in scoring | [12] |
| Commercial vehicle restriction on local or neighborhood collector streets | gross weight threshold pounds: 10,000; general rule: prohibited; exceptions: required delivery or pickup, business service where the vehicle is essential; routing condition: most direct route with least travel on local or residential collector streetsrule | Municipal street load status and truck-route reminders effective June 15, 2026 | Municipality of Anchorage local and neighborhood collector streets | Used in scoring | [13] [3] |
| JBER personnel and associated population | direct military and civilian personnel: 18,247; military dependents: 22,503; retirees: 10,626; total personnel dependents retirees: 51,376people | Fiscal year 2025 | Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson | Used in scoring | [15] [3] |
| Estimated JBER economic impact and jobs | total economic output usd: 4,195,897,000; total jobs: 31,137mixed | Fiscal year 2025 | JBER local economic area in Anchorage | Used in scoring | [15] |
| Total dock tonnage handled by Don Young Port of Alaska | 5,476,366tons | Calendar years 2016-2025 | Don Young Port of Alaska, Anchorage | Context only | [16] |
| AIAS cargo growth and named ANC private investment | cargo tonnage growth percent: 3; fedex anc domestic sort facility usd: 42,000,000mixed | First half of 2025 | Alaska International Airport System with FedEx investment at Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport | Context only | [17] |
| Anchorage visitor-economy activity reported for 2025 | airport people passed through: >2.6 million; moa travel tourism tax collections usd: 57,500,000; meetings events direct spending usd: 115,000,000mixed | Calendar year 2025 | Anchorage visitor economy | Context only | [18] |
| Housing conditions cited in the 2025 rehabilitation ordinance | rental vacancy rate: below 5%; rent increase since 2019 percent: 30; vacant abandoned residential properties: 180; share of registry built before 1980 percent: almost 80mixed | Housing conditions and policy findings stated in August 2025 ordinance | Municipality of Anchorage residential market and Vacant and Abandoned Buildings Registry | Used in scoring | [21] |
| Anchorage climatic and foundation design criteria | weathering: severe; ground snow load psf: 50; frost line depth warm foundation inches: 42; frost line depth cold foundation inches: 60; winter design temperature f: -7mixed | Adopted Anchorage climatic and foundation criteria in the referenced code edition | Anchorage code applicability stated in AMC 23.85 | Used in scoring | [22] |
| Listed invasive species restrictions affecting landscaping | additional species added: 16; effective month: May 2026; fine per violation usd: 250; required landscaping new development: listed invasive plants prohibitedmixed | Approved December 2, 2025; additional prohibitions effective May 2026 | Municipality of Anchorage | Context only | [23] [2] |
| Selected taxable commercial property assessed values | industrial usd: 3,290,000,000; retail food beverage usd: 1,740,000,000; office usd: 1,980,000,000; multifamily 4plus usd: 1,990,000,000usd | 2025 assessed valuation cycle | Municipality of Anchorage | Context only | [19] |
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 72.73 after target-market demand +2.9 pts, labor and staffing friction -0.6 pts, referral ecosystem +0.5 pts, and transportation, routing, and parking -0.1 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Utility Delta Audit: Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Opportunities in Local U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Anchorage industrial market vacancy and asking lease range and Midtown industrial vacancy and functional-space asking rents
- 2Structural Constraint and Jurisdictional Risk AuditInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Listed invasive species restrictions affecting landscaping
- 3Franchise data - remake - 142Internal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: On-site snow storage area for covered nonresidential development when snow is stored on site, Portable signs and new pole signs, Commercial vehicle restriction on local or neighborhood collector streets, and JBER personnel and associated population
- 4QuickFacts: Anchorage municipality, Alaska
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Municipal land area, Population per square mile, and Estimated households
- 5Anchorage Municipality, Alaska - Census Bureau Profile
Used for: Total employer establishments
- 6Occupational Employment and Wages in Anchorage — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wage across all occupations, Mean hourly wage for management occupations, Mean hourly wage for construction and extraction occupations, Mean hourly wage for installation, maintenance, and repair occupations, and Transportation and material moving employment and mean wage
- 7Anchorage, AK Economy at a Glance
Used for: Total nonfarm wage and salary employment in June 2026, Unemployment rate in June 2026, and Transportation and utilities employment in June 2026
- 8Summary of Alaska Wage and Hour Act
Used for: Alaska minimum wage effective July 1, 2026
- 9Anchorage Municipal Code Title 21, Chapter 7: Development and Design Standards
Used for: On-site snow storage area for covered nonresidential development when snow is stored on site
- 10Current Planning: Signs
Used for: Portable signs and new pole signs
- 11Anchorage Municipal Code Title 21, Chapter 12: Sign Standards
Used for: Portable signs and new pole signs
- 12MOA Snow HQ: All your plowing info is at Muni.org/plow
Used for: Estimated residential street clearing time after qualifying snowfall
- 13Municipality of Anchorage Seasonal Vehicle Weight Restrictions
Used for: Commercial vehicle restriction on local or neighborhood collector streets
- 14Midtown Economic and Housing Analysis
Used for: Average annual employment in Midtown, Midtown commercial concentration, and Largest establishment groups in Midtown
- 15Estimate of Economic Impact, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, FY25
Used for: JBER personnel and associated population and Estimated JBER economic impact and jobs
- 16Don Young Port of Alaska Ten Year Dock Tonnage Report 2016-2025
Used for: Total dock tonnage handled by Don Young Port of Alaska
- 17Alaska International Airport System 2025 Biannual Report Shows Continued Growth
Used for: AIAS cargo growth and named ANC private investment
- 18Visit Anchorage Annual Report: 2025 in Review
Used for: Anchorage visitor-economy activity reported for 2025
- 192025 Property Appraisal Annual Valuation Report
Used for: Selected taxable commercial property assessed values
- 20Anchorage Industrial Real Estate Outlook Q3 2025: What Sellers and Tenants Should Expect
Used for: Anchorage industrial market vacancy and asking lease range and Midtown industrial vacancy and functional-space asking rents
- 21AO 2025-84(S), As Amended and Corrected: Tax Incentives for Housing Rehabilitation
Used for: Housing conditions cited in the 2025 rehabilitation ordinance
- 22AMC 23.85 Local Amendments to the International Residential Code: Climatic and Geographic Design Criteria
Used for: Anchorage climatic and foundation design criteria
- 23AO 2025-131: Prohibiting Listed Invasive Species
Used for: Listed invasive species restrictions affecting landscaping
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.